Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Chauchat

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Chauchat

Skullbuster 23:58, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Okay. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 08:13, 18 March 2011
Concept: 5 It's funny because it's French, and because it's French it's bad, is it? Are French designs supposedly bad, then? You say 'this should tell you something' after saying it's French, but the thing is, it really doesn't tell me anything; all it does is set the tone as conversational in an attempt at conversational humour. But the problem is, what seems funny in conversation is not necessarily what is funny in writing, especially not a mock-up of an encyclopedia such as this. Instead of sarcasm, wink wink, nudge nudge, one-liners and the like, what you need is an overall concept, the broad angle from which you approach the subject. Everything should follow from there, everything there for a reason, supporting your angle.

And you definitely do have an angle, so really what you need is to use it - the gun is crap. Apparently because it's French; I don't entirely understand what that has to do with it as it is, but that's just because you don't really flesh out the notion that well. Don't just say some things and expect them to be funny, take them further, flesh them out. Develop your ideas, explain them and draw in support. What other questionable French engineering is it like? How does it fit into the timeline? Just what should the fact that it is French tell the reader?

The more you can relate to reality and to what people know and expect, the funnier and more meaningful it is apt to be, especially if you can twist reader expectations when doing so. Expectation seems to be the basis of humour, so use that. Don't just go into randoms and memes and made-up stuff. Random blokes sitting around and having an idea is pretty normal - was that what actually happened? If it was, how does that fit with the usual French approach? What is actually ridiculous about it? If that wasn't what happened, then why not use what did and draw out the ridiculous aspects of that, but with emphasis on how terrible it wound up?

Humour: 3 There are two main reasons, I think, why your humour isn't doing particularly well, here - one, there's just so little to this. You hardly go into your ideas, and there seems to be little basis on reality. Even what very well could be real, it's too cursory, and what is made up is also too cursory; need to make it seem real.

The other thing is the presentation itself. The entire thing is rather disordered. There's no real flow of ideas, more like you looked at another article, took pieces from that, and wrote your own such pieces for this, and they just don't entirely fit together. If the piece flows, it's usually easier to work with it, easier to work in jokes as well as easier for the reader to follow it. But it's really not so much a matter of working jokes into a piece in general, so much as putting your main idea to use and making the entire piece support that, each bit making a smaller joke as part of it, or laying out some background for a joke, or building up to a joke. Everything needs to be there for a reason, though that may seem completely crazy... guuh, just try to be funny and use your main idea.

Prose and formatting: 2 So this may be you'll really want to work on.

Format-wise, you have a whoops, some quotes, a lead sentence, some sections, and a youtube video. Intersperced are some lists, a couple of images that are really the same thing twice, and no real beginning, build-up, or end.

You need that. A proper beginning. Not just a {{whoops}}, some quotes and a sentence. For that matter, why is the whoops even there? It and the quotes are basically just unrelated one-liners - they don't do anything for the piece itself, but then quotes almost never do. Unless it's a real quote or just won't fit in any other way or sets the scene/tone/etc of the article perfectly, you usually do not want to use quotes at all, just as a general rule. They're ugly, amateurish, and their jokes would usually flow much better within the body of the piece itself, if their notions have any place in the article at all. Same goes for random {{whoops}}s - using one to say 'this is shit' is not funny. Comparing it to something similar might work better, but even then, if it's not something someone would actually seek out that came across the page, they tend not to help the piece.

As for said first sentence, you need more than a sentence to introduce your notion. You just do. Properly introduce it, say what the thing is, yes, what is important and/or notable about it, what relevance it had, where it came from, what you're doing with it... establish your angle entirely. Then go from there into the meat of it. The history and origins, the qualities and problems, the usage, etc, and have each bit lead from it to the next, subsections as part of their parent sections. Say what there is to say, flesh out each bit, and transition. Mind, I see you're using =Section= ==Subsection== - you really shouldn't be using single =s for the sections - double ==s are for the sections, and subsections are ===s or even ====s - it goes up to five or six, that are available. But the single =s are for the title; are the sections not sub-things of the article itself?


Lists are another thing that are not good - basically they don't go into any detail, and they have no flow, and it's very easy for random other people to just tack stuff onto them. Unless you say more with each element in the list, turn each one into a paragraph and really establish its joke and why it is there and whatnot, it's better to merge all the elements into one paragraph. Turn it into prose. It reads better and allows for more to be done with the stuff.


And you have a Youtube video in your article... why? I really cannot tell; I don't have the plugin and refuse to install it, something that has earned me a fair bit of trolling on this site, but the fact remains that I am not the only one who is like that, either, so it's not usually a good idea to try to make it a core piece of your article, or a conclusion. They can make fine ending notes, or even epilogues of sorts, and can also be used like images - goes with a section, helps illustrate the point, that kind of thing, but that's not really what you're doing here.

That said, even if a video does add humour to a piece, what you are doing seems using someone else's jokes and content and making it part of your content. But it's not actually part of the article and it's not original, and can you not write something that is part, something that is original, something that is entirely your own and all the better for it?

Images: 3 But you only have two, and they're both the same one, really! But as a general rule, it's not usually a good idea to add captions directly onto images, anyhow... and that includes turnng them into motivational posters, especially when there's nothing that it's actually motivating. If you want to caption an image, and you usually will, just use a thumb. Make some joke, tie it into the article, illustrate the thing. The images don't even need to be funny so long as they are there for some logical reason, just in general, and the caption will help tie them in, though most any unfunny image can be made funny with a clever caption. Not like the one I added. That kind of... was not good. Just replace that with something better.

Anyhow, you'll probably be needing more images for this - a good place to get such pictures is Wikimedia Commons, though you can often yoink the same images from the relevant Wikipedia article if you're like me and can't be arsed to actually enter said Commons. And if you want more tailored images, you can also make requests for manipulations here on RadicalX's corner.

Miscellaneous: 4 Eh, you've a ways to go. Numbers are for how it is so far, which at this point is a little silly. Heed the comments more.
Final Score: 17 All that said, mon, you'll also be wanting to do as Jack said (he's the one who added the ICU) - read HTBFANJS. And read the Beginner's Guide, as well, if you haven't. Yes, you've probably gotten a fair bit of folks saying this since you joined, but they be important, it would seem. Lots of very useful information, advices, and methods, hows and whys. If you want some whats, though, it may behoove you to check out some examples of good articles for ideas of what to make things look like. You're a;ready doing better than a lot of folks - you have an idea and are working with it, but you need to do more, and to focus, and especially work on your organisation and presentation.

Hopefully some of this and that will help, though. Best of luck, please don't be discouraged, especially as this is just the start for you, it would seem, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Reviewer: 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 05:58, 20 March 2011
5
Bloink
Concept
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
It's funny because it's French, and because it's French it's bad, is it? Are French designs supposedly bad, then? You say 'this should tell you something' after saying it's French, but the thing is, it really doesn't tell me anything; all it does is set the tone as conversational in an attempt at conversational humour. But the problem is, what seems funny in conversation is not necessarily what is funny in writing, especially not a mock-up of an encyclopedia such as this. Instead of sarcasm, wink wink, nudge nudge, one-liners and the like, what you need is an overall concept, the broad angle from which you approach the subject. Everything should follow from there, everything there for a reason, supporting your angle.

And you definitely do have an angle, so really what you need is to use it - the gun is crap. Apparently because it's French; I don't entirely understand what that has to do with it as it is, but that's just because you don't really flesh out the notion that well. Don't just say some things and expect them to be funny, take them further, flesh them out. Develop your ideas, explain them and draw in support. What other questionable French engineering is it like? How does it fit into the timeline? Just what should the fact that it is French tell the reader?

The more you can relate to reality and to what people know and expect, the funnier and more meaningful it is apt to be, especially if you can twist reader expectations when doing so. Expectation seems to be the basis of humour, so use that. Don't just go into randoms and memes and made-up stuff. Random blokes sitting around and having an idea is pretty normal - was that what actually happened? If it was, how does that fit with the usual French approach? What is actually ridiculous about it? If that wasn't what happened, then why not use what did and draw out the ridiculous aspects of that, but with emphasis on how terrible it wound up?

3
Bloink
Humour
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
There are two main reasons, I think, why your humour isn't doing particularly well, here - one, there's just so little to this. You hardly go into your ideas, and there seems to be little basis on reality. Even what very well could be real, it's too cursory, and what is made up is also too cursory; need to make it seem real.

The other thing is the presentation itself. The entire thing is rather disordered. There's no real flow of ideas, more like you looked at another article, took pieces from that, and wrote your own such pieces for this, and they just don't entirely fit together. If the piece flows, it's usually easier to work with it, easier to work in jokes as well as easier for the reader to follow it. But it's really not so much a matter of working jokes into a piece in general, so much as putting your main idea to use and making the entire piece support that, each bit making a smaller joke as part of it, or laying out some background for a joke, or building up to a joke. Everything needs to be there for a reason, though that may seem completely crazy... guuh, just try to be funny and use your main idea.

2
Bloink
Prose and formatting
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
So this may be you'll really want to work on.

Format-wise, you have a whoops, some quotes, a lead sentence, some sections, and a youtube video. Intersperced are some lists, a couple of images that are really the same thing twice, and no real beginning, build-up, or end.

You need that. A proper beginning. Not just a {{whoops}}, some quotes and a sentence. For that matter, why is the whoops even there? It and the quotes are basically just unrelated one-liners - they don't do anything for the piece itself, but then quotes almost never do. Unless it's a real quote or just won't fit in any other way or sets the scene/tone/etc of the article perfectly, you usually do not want to use quotes at all, just as a general rule. They're ugly, amateurish, and their jokes would usually flow much better within the body of the piece itself, if their notions have any place in the article at all. Same goes for random {{whoops}}s - using one to say 'this is shit' is not funny. Comparing it to something similar might work better, but even then, if it's not something someone would actually seek out that came across the page, they tend not to help the piece.

As for said first sentence, you need more than a sentence to introduce your notion. You just do. Properly introduce it, say what the thing is, yes, what is important and/or notable about it, what relevance it had, where it came from, what you're doing with it... establish your angle entirely. Then go from there into the meat of it. The history and origins, the qualities and problems, the usage, etc, and have each bit lead from it to the next, subsections as part of their parent sections. Say what there is to say, flesh out each bit, and transition. Mind, I see you're using =Section= ==Subsection== - you really shouldn't be using single =s for the sections - double ==s are for the sections, and subsections are ===s or even ====s - it goes up to five or six, that are available. But the single =s are for the title; are the sections not sub-things of the article itself?


Lists are another thing that are not good - basically they don't go into any detail, and they have no flow, and it's very easy for random other people to just tack stuff onto them. Unless you say more with each element in the list, turn each one into a paragraph and really establish its joke and why it is there and whatnot, it's better to merge all the elements into one paragraph. Turn it into prose. It reads better and allows for more to be done with the stuff.


And you have a Youtube video in your article... why? I really cannot tell; I don't have the plugin and refuse to install it, something that has earned me a fair bit of trolling on this site, but the fact remains that I am not the only one who is like that, either, so it's not usually a good idea to try to make it a core piece of your article, or a conclusion. They can make fine ending notes, or even epilogues of sorts, and can also be used like images - goes with a section, helps illustrate the point, that kind of thing, but that's not really what you're doing here.

That said, even if a video does add humour to a piece, what you are doing seems using someone else's jokes and content and making it part of your content. But it's not actually part of the article and it's not original, and can you not write something that is part, something that is original, something that is entirely your own and all the better for it?

3
Bloink
Images
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
But you only have two, and they're both the same one, really! But as a general rule, it's not usually a good idea to add captions directly onto images, anyhow... and that includes turnng them into motivational posters, especially when there's nothing that it's actually motivating. If you want to caption an image, and you usually will, just use a thumb. Make some joke, tie it into the article, illustrate the thing. The images don't even need to be funny so long as they are there for some logical reason, just in general, and the caption will help tie them in, though most any unfunny image can be made funny with a clever caption. Not like the one I added. That kind of... was not good. Just replace that with something better.

Anyhow, you'll probably be needing more images for this - a good place to get such pictures is Wikimedia Commons, though you can often yoink the same images from the relevant Wikipedia article if you're like me and can't be arsed to actually enter said Commons. And if you want more tailored images, you can also make requests for manipulations here on RadicalX's corner.

4
Bloink
Miscellaneous
Anything else... or not...
Eh, you've a ways to go. Numbers are for how it is so far, which at this point is a little silly. Heed the comments more.
17
Bloink
Final score
1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 05:58, 20 March 2011
All that said, mon, you'll also be wanting to do as Jack said (he's the one who added the ICU) - read HTBFANJS. And read the Beginner's Guide, as well, if you haven't. Yes, you've probably gotten a fair bit of folks saying this since you joined, but they be important, it would seem. Lots of very useful information, advices, and methods, hows and whys. If you want some whats, though, it may behoove you to check out some examples of good articles for ideas of what to make things look like. You're a;ready doing better than a lot of folks - you have an idea and are working with it, but you need to do more, and to focus, and especially work on your organisation and presentation.

Hopefully some of this and that will help, though. Best of luck, please don't be discouraged, especially as this is just the start for you, it would seem, and if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Personal tools
projects