Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Napoleon III
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Zarbag 17:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Got it. --S'r Mnbvcxz 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
|Concept:||5||The subject matter makes sense, and it does stay reasonably close to history. However, you are relying to much on random humor, or even "ranting". Because there is so much base material to work with on Napoleon III, this is completely unnecessary.
There is a difference between "funny outlandish" and "outlandish and just stupid". For example the following section is funny,
While the following is not:
Now, the first one is funny because the reader really doesn't see the punchline coming, and the punchline is relatively brief. Whereas, the second has what I could call "run-on punch line." Meaning, you try to extend and "accelerate" one joke into the next.
Also, and probably more importantly, the second joke is just too attacky and ranty. In other words, it comes across like you're hurling random insults for the sake on random insults, like an angry 10 year old. Satire is funny, but overdoing is as bad, or even worse than under-doing it. Also, make fun of things that deserve to be made fun off.
Also, I believe you are missing several opportunities for satire. Some examples include:
Additionally, try to include more "in depth" information when funny. Often you gloss over major periods with outlandish-random jokes, when the truth underlying it has much satirical potential. There is enough base material to work with that this could easily be a long, funny, article
|Prose and Formatting:||7||I don't see any formatting problems. However, you do have some minor issues
|Images:||6.5||The images are appropriate (except the robot), but not very funny. You probably should have one making fun of his mustache. You could try look on wikipedia or the wiki commons for images, or here for some cartoon images.
Also, I'd loose the robot image, its random and not funny. You might also want to replace the Bismark image with this one.
|Humour:||4.5||At times you approach good historical satire, but often, you slip into random humor. Score by section:
Header: 5 semi deadpan, which is good. However, the humor sort of "blunt", and it should probably start out more deadpan.
Early Life: 2.5 ok, here you mix real biographical details with and outlandish rant and random humor. I think this might be the worst section of the whole article. It ignore alot of potentially funny material, and instead relies on attacky/ranty and outlandish statement.
President of France: 4 here, it gets better, but is too "blunt", and still has the "glossing over too much" feel to it. As an example:
Here, you could make fun of the fact that no French government between the Bourbon monarchy (fell 1792) and the Third Republic (established 1870), or make fun of the fact that France kicked out the relatively moderate and reasonable Louis Phillipe for the populist autocrat Napoleon III. (Its always good to make fun on the subject, but don't rant). For example:
or something to that effect
Emperor of the French: 5.5 Here, you do use some funny turn of phrases, and you stick to real history. (Napoleon III was noted for his lechery).
Intervention in Mexico - what a good idea!: 4 Here, you still have some good jokes, but you seem to ramble too much, and often slip into "Middle school sounding" prose. I.e. it sounds like its an example of good writing by a 10 year old; possibly because you have too many short sentences.
Also, Austria Hungary didn't exist at the time of Maximilian became emperor of Mexico, you're a couple of years off. (Generally, don't make factual errors unless they are funny.
War Against Prussia - Never a Good Move: 4.5 You do point out Napoleon's hypocrisy of supporting the Habsburgs in Mexico but not in Germany. However, alot of the prose is sloppy, and often comes close to having tone changes.
Death: 3 You should make this longer than one sentence.
|Improvability Score:||6.5||this article should be easy to improve. Basically, you'll need to take out the random humor and flesh out the sections with more "funny and true" or "funny and close to being true" humor in it.
Basically, think of Napoleon III as a 19th century combination of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (And maybe Carter and Ford thrown in there too.) He ruled what was arguably the most powerful state in the world for 18 years, and he didn't do that good of job it.
|Final Score:||29.5||tone down, expand|
|Reviewer:||--S'r Mnbvcxz 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)|