From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I wrote this article as my first, back in 2009. It's been a while, and I suppose I could take the fact that no one's really changed anything as a sign that it's alright, but there's no harm in asking for opinions. Let me know if it can be improved. Deadpeople 02:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll fill in this table thing for you, mon. Should be done in the next couple days. 23:46, 7 May 2011
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
|Mmmkay, so I start reading this, and immediately I have no idea what you're talking about. The pagename is 'Intelligent dance music', but the title is 'IDM', says it's a 'catch-all acronym', but it doesn't say for what... so what does it actually stand for? Something about dolphins, apparently, from reading on. Maybe. Don't assume your reader is familiar, either. Even if they are, if you're doing some strange swapparound like you seem to be doing here, you need to make it especially clear what you're making it out to be, as well as what it is normally, though that latter part perhaps more indirectly - but make the connection, or it's not apt to come across as a joke, just a pile of misinformation. And while misinformation can be funny, there needs to be a reason for it. Why this instead of something else?
It becomes more apparent later, in that IDM apparently sounds rather similar to dolphins, or some such, but if you don't introduce in the introduction, what's the point of having an intro at all? Call me old fashioned, but I figure the things really should introduce. Subject, angle, perhaps what the article actually going to say, or at least lead up to it... and it should set the scene. Draw in the reader. Except currently it doesn't draw in the reader; it seems more random than anything, and random is alienating. Doesn't seem to introduce any concept in particular, just a bunch of stuff that it's saying that may or may not be relevant to anything else. It shouldn't be random; that's what a concept is for, a reason why everything is even there. So the dolphins, make the article tie into your dolphins, or branch out from them, and connect the thing to the dolphins more, parallels and whatnot... don't just replace stuff. There are features that do this kind of thing effectively... I particularly like A. A. Milne, but that one's... even better than the usual. Layers, and whatnot. Meh, stick to your thing more and it'll help; that you have a concept at all puts this article above most.
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
|Sections... although this would all be a lot better if you stuck to your concept more, and connected the thingies better, and used aspects of both to tie them together and to make funnies and whatnot.
The first sentence is reasonable, saying what it is... although what it stands for might be nice, and more about what it actually is, and why it's notable, and how it came to be what it is now might... help. *gestures vaguely upwards* But... why is the pronunciation included for an acronym? Stating the obvious usually isn't actually that effective a humour technique - too obvious, or something. Likewise, saying meanings have been lost and hiding things in mystery is massively overdone, and it just bothers me. It's like a cheap way out of coming up with or twisting some actual thing, when a twist on reality is usually the funniest thing a writer can do, and saying it's unknown just isn't that funny. And what is Mixmag? What are all these alternate terms? Thing is, the last thing you want to do is alienate your readers, and yet that is exactly what this is apt to do by mentioning things they're not likely to know and whilst being evasive and throwing in random stuff. Reading things that expect you to know stuff you don't is rarely fun, just in general, so take a sentence to say what Mixmag is, perhaps making a joke about it in the process (their website design alone is absolutely terrible, so surely there's something you could mock).
Mind, I'm not saying you should say what all the acronyms are... listing a bunch of things usually isn't that good of an idea in the first place, and acronyms even less so as they tend to be ambiguous. Even if they really are all terms for the thing, will the reader care? Cut it down to a few and link them like the ADD one, perhaps, as that many is a bit much. The history you mention may as well be in the next section. The notion of it being imperceptible to stupid people is basically calling anyone who doesn't understand it stupid, though, no? Normally readers don't really like being talked down at, and it's not really funny, either. Maybe something about how dolphin sounds translate out of the water? If it's a reference to that, make it clear; I'm stupid and can't figure it out.
This just isn't that funny. Not that I'm any good with this, but I can't tell what's made up and what's not, or what's actually important or what's not, and that the dance stuff and the dolphin stuff actually clashes doesn't help, either... put the ideas together and make it make sense with them together, instead of... well, it just seems randomly pulled together as it is. Also, sexuality is not inherently funny in of itself. Just for the record. Neither are waffles, although I really like waffles. But that's completely beside the point.
The dolphins finding it intelligent to do things is a nice touch, though - taking advantage of consumer idiocy? That's a common theme, and common themes are often good.
Who is Tycho? This is an encyclopaedia; say who folks are. In doing so, there's often opportunity to mock them or what they are, or perceptions of them or that or some such, too.
What's said here might do to be established sooner - it seems to be the basis of the entire article.
Also, saying things don't really exist doesn't actually make sense. If you can make sense, that tends to help.
Oh, yay, a list. This you could actually flesh out, though. Say more than a sentence for each, and some could be quite funny. Emphasise the silliness and treat it seriously, like beets. What happens to the beets? Who cleans up the mess? How much do all the broken microphones cost the folks annually? How do dolphins even do that? And what actually is Noice? That kind of thing.
Okay, they have silly names. Can you not say something more, ditch the listiness and perhaps pick out a few more exemplary ones and expand upon those, using the aspects of the real IDM and the dolphin one to make something to read, and worth reading? And have I mentioned how folks tend not to like lists around here, at least not 'unadorned' ones...
I'm not really sure it has this section, seeing as both the articles listed are kind of not good.
|Prose and formatting |
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
|The writing's decent; you can clearly communicate and write and all that... so what you should work on is your organisation. As I said before, introduce in your introduction; that's what it's for. Look at the ledes on decent wikipedia articles for examples; they tend to do a rather good job of it, and the layout in general... ideally, each section should follow from the previous, and lead into the next, and the contents be relevant to what the section is about. That kind of thing.
And do break up your sections into paragraphs. Giant blocks of text are unbecoming, and when things move on to a new idea/subject/dealy, a new paragraph makes it easier to read, anyhow.
I feel like a making list of reasons why lists are bad:
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
|The images aren't bad images, but their captions rather let them down - they don't make jokes, they don't really tie them in, and they don't even make any assertion as to why they're even there. The last one's better than the first two - it's an example of a duo, with the section about the artists, but why is it this particular duo? What's special about them, what's the occasion of the image? I mean, it's a pair of dolphins, but make something up, something clever and witty, or something, playing off the whole dolphin dance music notion, instead of just, here, have some dolphins.
Likewise, the others... the first could be a lot better, something about how what it's wearing is standard gear or something, maybe, before it failed for some particular reason reason... the second, I don't even know what to make of that, possibly because I've never seen Battlefield Earth, nor even really know what it is. Why is it a good movie for that? Have your images illustrate your points.
Anything else... or not...
|Final score |
20:15, 9 May 2011
|Okay, I'm really sorry about this. I don't mean to be harsh, or incoherent, for that matter, but it looks like I may have gone and done a bit of both. The former, at least, should hopefully give you stuff to work on (if not, just shoot me. You'll do us all a favour), and is also just opinion, pretty much, so yeah. I do hope it helps, though. As for the incoherence, I plead lack of sleep. On that note, I go sleep now.|