Confident that this at least has a great concept (feature worthy?) but is the execution as good? In depth as you can please. :) 17:23 30 June 2009
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:Conservapedia is better than Wikipedia, Christian Announces
|
| rdfs:comment
| - Confident that this at least has a great concept (feature worthy?) but is the execution as good? In depth as you can please. :) 17:23 30 June 2009
|
| dcterms:subject
| |
| Mcomment
| - Heerenveen/Mcomment - actually, I have to ask, why was that video a response to "This could be the fastest freeway in California"?
|
| Pcomment
| - Pretty well written, couldn't detect any major spelling mistakes . There's a couple of issues with sentence fragments and clauses - for example, would read better as "...how much better an encyclopædia the free and trustworthy Conservapedia is than its costly, lying rival Wikipedia". There's a bit of an thing with consistency - for example you flit between the British and American spelling of "encyclopædia" , but there's nothing alarming to fix.
|
| Icomment
| - The first one, I like. It compares the two nicely, and fits in nicely with the style of the article. I wouldn't really change a thing about it. The second one, however, feels completely redundant and unnecessary and redundant. It's just filler, really, and it doesn't especially garner any laughs. Doesn't garnish any, either . I've always been of the view that UnNews' should have one big picture, but if you're going for a second one I'd recommend something like a picture of what the guy might look like in the video with a caption like "The Conservapedia champion, here in his first pose for new employers Vogue" or something. Generally, all I'll say to sum up is they're alright, but generally having the same thing twice doesn't really work.
|
| Pscore
| |
| Ccomment
| - I'm actually of the opposite disposition to your comment here - I think you've actually done a very good job with a concept that doesn't really have that far to go. It feels like you're trying to stretch a tiny little story out, which it doesn't want to do so you end up covering the same ground. Maybe it's because years of experience have made their crazy antics less and less ludicrous, but I think that the whole "making fun of those right-wing lunatics" train has sort of departed. Wikipedia, too, for that matter. I do like some of the twists you put in there, like the whole self=promotion thing at the end, but ultimately I think the concept's too in-jokey and trivial to really be feature material.
|
| Cscore
| |
| Hcomment
| - Considering what you're writing about , I actually quite enjoyed that. Being an article about Conservapedia¸you tend to expect a lot of "they say this when they mean/this blue link is going to something completely different" and I was pleasantly surprised at how little of that there actually was. There are a couple of clichés in there that don't elicit much of a response but for the most part you sidestepped that pretty well. I thought as a non-sequitur the shorts gag was very good on the second read-through, although on the first I admittedly asked myself "What?". You do end up going over your old points a bit though - the "no liberal bias" and them trying to one-up each other gets a little stale. Two things that I can think of that could help quickly - one, I don't think the last line is really needed. It's full-on in-joke and anyone who is going to laugh at that already has done. Secondly, for a bit more variety, why not do a paragraph parodying the responses of those in the YouTube comments? Even if the paragraph doesn't quite come off, it'll be funny because it's just so easy to do - especially with something like this where there are clearly defined "sides". You don't want to go quite too far though, or you'll be crossing the vanity line, which is never a good thing. Overall though, I thought it was pretty funny with a little room for improvement.
|
| Iscore
| |
| Hscore
| |
| Fcomment
| - You weren't expecting me, were you? Anyway, to sum up - it's a good article, which pretty much sums up what VFG is - something that won't be featured because of the concept, but is very well written and still brings out a few laughs despite this. I definitely enjoyed it, like all your work. Nice job.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| Signature
| - Heerenveen/sig3|2/07 12:28
|
| abstract
| - Confident that this at least has a great concept (feature worthy?) but is the execution as good? In depth as you can please. :) 17:23 30 June 2009
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)