Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia:No Reading Articles
Uncyclopedia:No Reading Articles[edit source]
Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 9 | A lot more laughs than you would expect from a normal essay, that's for sure! The fact that this is a rather good concept doesn't really hurt things, but I'll get into that in more detail in the appropriate section.
First off, the opening. Nothing really wrong here, and the real eye-catcher for me was "reading articles can be something of a chore, something detracting from the tireless citations, strict guidelines, helpful starting points, and the endless reversions that make Uncyclopedia so great.", as you can tell it draws from experience, although it is really a joke you have to be an established Uncyclopedian to get. that's OK though, since 90% of your traffic will probably be from the afore-mentioned userbase. Secondly, the section "What sucks about articles". I have to say, I loved the "This makes most articles start with a bold restatement of the title" comment, seeing as though that's my number one pet peeve on Uncyc. Most readers, however, will still find this rather funny, especially the "Yes, that's right, looking to the red stamp to the right of this paragraph as if it were one of those websites you and your brother look at on Friday nights" line. The only thing I would say here is that the joke in the final paragraph of the section runs on for a bit longer than it feels like it should. Thirdly, "Why you shouldn't read articles". This feels like the "main" section of the article, what with those C-quotes (which I love the use of, by the way), and the image right by it, making it appear a bit template-laden. However, the text contained is still extremely funny, again especially the bit in the C-quotes ("None of my contributions have been deleted in five days", especially, since it reminds quite a lot of quality control). The text outside of the quotes is still good, but you can tell it's used to set up the quotes. The fourth section ("How one should go about their time at Uncyclopedia if the articles remain unread"), isn't quite as funny as the paragraphs above it. I feel that it obtains a lot of its humour from the (assuming again that the reader is a regular at Uncyc) reader's knowledge that this is what a lot of users basically spend their time here doing. It still has its moments, especially "Everyone else has done the reading for you, and you can safely get your signature on the page, without any risk of looking foolish" parodying people getting up slut lists and trying to be accepted, but I feel that this is the worst section of the lot, simply because theer isn't all that much that an IP or new user can relate to. The last section, "Isn't this very policy contradicting and nullifying itself, a veritable catch-22 that by its reading renders it unfollowable?", is in itself, not that funny. But when you combine it with the rest of the article, making the double-entendre that the user has already written it, it becomes much more sensical. The "And it's got an official title. So you'd better listen to it", was my favourite here, personally, because it reflects the admins on-site a fair bit. |
| Concept: | 7 | It's a good concept, though it isn't brilliant. We have nowhere near Wikipedia's amount of essays, and in my opine we do need a fair few more. Building up to the double-entendre in that last paragraph was done extremely well, as you avoided any mention of the hypocrisy of the reader reading the essay up until that point. Not really sure how you could improve, unless you could expand your targer userbase somewhat. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | Absolutely perfect here, I can't say a bad word about it. As I would expect from you, nothing wrong grammatically and spelling-wise, the prose is set out as you would expect from a multi-feature writer, the templates used (C-quote) are used in a very neat way, the first mention of the name is emboldened, and the pictures are in just the right places. Nothing wrong here. |
| Images: | 6 | The images are alright, but they suffer from two things. One is the logical connection betweeen Uncyclopedians that says "NRV=crap", and the other is that both the NRV stamp and the UN:VFD bag are, again, in-jokes that new users might struggle to get fully. However, from a |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | n/a |
| Final Score: | 40 | A very good, humourous essay. It can be hard to review stuff in the Uncyclopedia/Project: namespace, but this is one of if not the best essay in there right now. The only thing against it is that it is a bit in-jokey, but that's to be expected of an essay (or anything else in the Uncyclopedia/Project: namespace) |
| Reviewer: | –—Hv (talk) 25/03 20:23 | |