This article is a special request; it is not on the list of frequently viewed articles at all, scoring only 1308 views in all of February. However, it was brought to my attention as an example of a remarkably sad article.
And so it is. The lead is about something at best tangentially related to the nominal topic of the article, but there is no mention of animation in the lead paragraph at all. After this is a bare list of, I suppose, directors or producers and films they directed or produced (can't tell which), which I presume are animated films. There's an image, the purpose of which is unclear.
The only redeeming graces this article has is that it is written in more or less correct English, and it does not appear to contain any unexpected penises.
Grade: F
Viewed: 45 times a day
And so it is. The lead is about something at best tangentially related to the nominal topic of the article, but there is no mention of animation in the lead paragraph at all. After this is a bare list of, I suppose, directors or producers and films they directed or produced (can't tell which), which I presume are animated films. There's an image, the purpose of which is unclear.
The only redeeming graces this article has is that it is written in more or less correct English, and it does not appear to contain any unexpected penises.
Grade: F
Viewed: 45 times a day
It does not contain any unexpected penises because the picture shows Felix, not Fritz.
ReplyDeleteThis article is rather good:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_animation_in_the_United_States
Comprehensive, clear, encyclopedic in tone, etc.
I'd give it a solid B
Contrasting the Animation in the United States during the silent era" arty with the modern one, it should be no surprise the latter is better. Another clear example of Wiki's bias towards the here and now over the past.
ReplyDeleteWhat a spectacularly bad article...
ReplyDelete...and it does not appear to contain any unexpected penises....
ReplyDeleteYour writing style often reminds me of Douglas Adams :)