Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/John Hodgman
John Hodgman[edit]
Good evening. This is a long-needed UNCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE about John Hodgman. EXCESSIVE CAPITALISATION may be a problem. Thank you. That is all. MacMania 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Yours is now the article that has been on the queue longest, bar Acrolo's but that has complications, so congrats on reaching the top of my articles to review list. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
| Humour: | 8 | I, personally, like your humour. Your style is an interesting one that allows you to be both subtle and overt when it is required. The issues that I see are that occasionally in the article you wander from the topic into a land of your own creation. I would suggest that while you can take liberties with the subject of your article you shouldn't start off on a completely tangental course, this is not a major difficulty but I would suggest that you reconsider the instances where it appears. Now we come to the most obvious criticism, the capitalisation. Having a reasonable knowledge of the man, I am at a loss as to why you have chosen to captilise excessively. Am I missing something? While it is slightly amusing simply because it doesn't fit into the article, I don't really think it should remain, what amuses one person as being random will annoy another person because it is irrelevant and pointless. Consider changing this or at least explain why you have done it. |
| Concept: | 8 | Your concept is good and you write with consistency of tone the majority of the time. All I would say that is worthy of a bit more attention is the tone slipping slightly when you go into detail. The tone you are using works very well descriptively and is good for this type of article. However you have to ensure that you stay consistent when you go into depth. The tone relies heavily on the reader being a part of the article's framework, you can't decide to forget about them in the middle. All the 'Dear reader's' encourage a sense of closeness between the author and the reader. Thus remember to maintain this idea throughout, it can be as simple as briefly addressing the reader prior to making a point, just try to avoid neglecting the issue. This is less serious than anything else as tonal consistency is not an essential. This is only if you want the article to be completely consistent, nothing people really care about on VFH. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8.5 | Fine, in essence. I decided to tax you 0.5 of a point for unnecessary capitalisation with no obvious reason. Otherwise your prose are OK with only a couple of very minor errors, that could be sorted by having another quick look through. The text is broken up well enough and your image to text ratio is absolutely fine. Not much to do here. |
| Images: | 10 | Perfectly fine, the images are relevant to the article and flow well with the text. The captions aren't perfect but then again nothing is except branston pickle. Nothing really needing changed here except may be to put the middle image onto the right hand side so everything is nice and literary. |
| Miscellaneous: | 9 | My overall grade of the article |
| Final Score: | 43.5 | I liked this article and I suspect others will to. It is accessible and while it is not laugh out loud funny it gave me some laughs. Most of the changes are purely cosmetic and those that aren't can be fixed very swiftly. Well done and good luck carrying out any edits. Oh and in case you missed it earlier, why the hell are some words capitalised for no apparent reason??? |
| Reviewer: | --ChiefjusticeDS 19:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |
I want to apologise humbly, deeply and sincerely for the capitalisation. The reason was that in Hodgman's two almanacs and weblog posts, there are often points where words are capitalised for no other reasons than emphasis. I am now in the process of implementing changes, although I think I may leave some capitalisation (ex. first words in paragraphs, job titles, certain words that might need CAPS emphasis) behind to reinforce Hodgman's style. MacMania 20:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)