Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Why?:Join Nonciclopedia II
Why?:Join Nonciclopedia[edit source]
Bleh. --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 19:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 |
Nachlader will review this article. |
 |
- Now that I've had jolly good fun showing off my template, I'll publish this thing. --Nachlader 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Somewhat troubled and challenged on different fronts, but captures the sense of a humour article impeccably. The ability to at least convey to the reader that they can make an article that does know how to spell 'humour', even if it isn't laugh-out-loud, is clearly the mark of someone who has been at Uncyc for quite a while - in your case, three years. You understand - and I don't mean to patronise - what makes a good comedy on this site, but the only searing problem is not being able to nick the most distinct factors of the article and shooting them home.
The humour, whilst purely evident in the spiritual course of the article, sticks to abstract themes. However, it's not the kind of hiterisoprah-clad crap, it's the kind of fuzzy random humour that leaves you warm inside, consisting of some familiarity. However - random humour is random, it mostly serves to show how much the author is struggling for material. The concept dwells a bit, and misses out what I think may well be some clinical opportunities for humour. Generally, the focus of article may require shifting. As it stands, it comes off as a good set-up for any new article - some satire, random humour, mock the look, etc - but I believe it could benefit by an impressionable margin if the direction of satire is shifted a bit, bend more a bit on stereotypes and how they could be inflicted on Nonciclopedia Il, like "Any search for 'Adolf Hitler' and you will be directed towards Mussolini instead". |
| Concept: | 7 | I can really understand the idea behind this article and I believe it's clever, I don't think there has been an article that talks about babel Uncyclopedias. A direct article about one of the said wikis would be quite tiresome, so creating a Why? article instead reeks of the right choice. So in my opinion, this is promising idea. I even had a look at Nonciclopedia just to see what the fuss was about, and yes I agree, there are some parts that look silly to the My opinion on the approach is mixed. I either think it's right kind of path, or it's fallen victim to lack of research. The understanding of this nation on your behalf does have another side to it though, I'd be interested to learn how much you know about Italy - it doesn't appear very sharp. It may be intentional, given the tired assault of the language and writing style, but then I have a thing about how much research authors pour into their work, I believe it hampers the potential areas of material that goes unexplored. So, in the sake of progress, I'm going with the side of me that thinks it needs more research in all things Italian, so you can involve the country more in it's own article about the nation's encyclopaedia. It's not that much ripe for expansion otherwise. If the article isn't trying to take further swipes at Italia for a keen source of humour, I assume it is reflecting on the solemn motivation that you seemed to run on in order to write this article, a sort of "uh, fine. Let's do this already" type attitude. This works if the subject is usually thought to be boring by a stereotypical consensus of people, such as Sarah Plain and Tall. However, I wouldn't categorise an article on another humour site in such a way. I suggest you reconsider your execution, perhaps talk about it casually, state some stereotypes of the site, mock the common page and whatnot. There's still a place for a random humour within this, I believe. Of course, the most obvious representation of this article would be that it's written by someone who edits Nonciclopedia. But let's not go that far. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | Good. Mustn't grumble. A satisfying length of words and sensible organisation of sections. However, there are some ugly parts. For example, there is an overuse of "DO NOT PANIC!", which I think labours the joke quicker is the same phrase is used. If you want to keep those in, consider changing a few to similar warnings, such as "Not to worry!" and such. Seeing the same phrase over and over can be boring, as the reader will expect what to read next and give up reading altogether.
It could do with a concluding section at least. Maybe go through a quick summary of advice, like "So when creating your first article at Nonciclopedia, make sure you include plenty of pornography, references to Benito Berlusconi (reference to the Mussolini-Berlusconi mix-up), something to do with the 2006 World Cup, pasta, pizza, Romans or whatever. Good luck, ciao!". |
| Images: | 3 | Can't really commend much here. Three images supplied, the only image that I saw any meaning behind it was the first one, of the site's logo. The other two images, of the old man and the bear, refuse to talk to me. They are zany, which means they could be interpreted to my mind if the caption is redone. For example, if you use some of the other strange images from the site and use the caption to confirm that image's source as Nonciclopedia before ridiculing it in the way you mocked the horoscope image.
I thought about the possibility of how non-Nonciclopedia images could be used in the article, but I agree with using only images from the aforementioned site. But most of the work may well have to be done on the captions where images are concerned, so long as you assure the reader where the images came from. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5.5 | Average'd. |
| Final Score: | 26.5 | Not horrendously bad, but needs a push. Hopefully not in the direction that it just falls down the stairs again.
Clip away at some of the strange parts ("Most visited pages include Emo and Vagina, which are common, as this is Italy.", I don't identify 'emo' with Italy. Vagina yes, boobs yes, football yes, emos no. Finland maybe, but not Italy), analyse the prose once more on the breach, tear the images a new one, and take to the concept once more, with not a single step back. Other opinions are available and good luck. |
| Reviewer: | --Nachlader 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |