After looking around and seeing how great everything was, i decided to join.
I wanted to edit an article, and found this horrid mess some racist wrote.
I had to re-do the whole thing!
Hyperbole is engaged in the dual processes of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Hi, HODIS, and welcome to Uncyclopedia! So, it's been three weeks since you made this request. You've gone ahead and made a bunch more edits to the page since then. I'll go ahead and give it a review as it exists now. Taking this section by section:
Templates: There should not be three templates on this article. None of these templates are even particularly funny. What they tell me is that the article will have something to do with communist China; I (like most Uncyclopedians, I'm sure) have no idea who or what Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan is. Maybe cut it down to the top one.
Quote: Okay, at the point I'm reading this, I have no idea what Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan is, I can see a picture of Dora the Explorer out of the corner of my eye, and I'm reading some ridiculous quote about god and gays creating each other and freebasing child tears. I'm lost, and I'm a little annoyed by it.
Lede: Finally, we see that the subject of the article is a Chinese propaganda cartoon. Good. That sentence needs to be right up at the top, to establish what the hell the article is about, before any zany templates or quotes. It says Nick Jr. rebroadcasts the show - do they? At this point, I've decided to look it up, since I feel like I have no context for this article.
And... okay. So, it's a one year old Nickelodeon children's show. Unless the reader either is, or has, a three year old child, the reader will have no idea what the hell this article is about. They'll see a claim that it's Chinese propaganda and a picture of Dora the Explorer, and they'll decide they can't be arsed to figure out what they're looking at, and move on. So, there's your biggest problem off the bat: you've just lost 99% of your audience - the 99% who need some explanation of what the hell a "Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan" is.
Let's proceed as though I'm part of that remaining 1% of the audience.
Lede: You go on to say that Nickelodeon denies that the show is Chinese propaganda - and reasonably so, since it isn't, and you haven't given us a reason yet to think it is. You then assign a bunch of fictitious awards to the show. Don't do that. There was an author here, whose name I cannot even speak without facing a ban, who used to write articles about fictional movies and say "It won 17 Emmys, 3 Grammys, 2 Tonys, a Pulitzer Prize, and grossed $14,100,200,236,272,326,399." That was retarded, and we deleted all of his articles.
Origins: It's taken a long time to get here - the part where I think you're about to actualy explain what Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan is. Then I get misdirected, and told that Mao Zedong made the Teletubbies and handed it off (utterly randomly) to Trey Parker of South Park fame. Finally, I'm told that a Chinese orphan who was frequently raped is the creator of the show. Dude, maybe we don't share a sense of humor, but I don't find a lot to laugh about in saying that Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan had its origin in the frequent rape and brutal beatings of a Chinese orphan. Overall, this section didn't tell me anything about the show's origins, nor did it, in any way I can see, parody the show's origins. It just randomly references things that existed (Chairman Mao, South Park, Teletubbies) until it's a paragraph long. What a waste of time.
Plot: This section is an incoherent mess. I think it's trying to say that all the shows are structured the same way, and that they're communist propaganda with a little bit of multiligualism thrown in because it's trendy. Well, I can say that in one sentence - I just did. What we get here is a section full of intentionally misspelled words, some pointless Hitler-Aristotle hybrid that doesn't resemble Hitler, and something called Theoretical Quantum God Physicists.
Characters: Okay, so we run down through the characters. Let's see. The first one is a child prostitute who married her pimp and killed a bunch of people. The second one is some kind of retarded drug addict who's been accused of pedophilia. The third one is an insane drug addict. The fifth one is a mentally ill painter. Okay, this is going to sound a little harsh, and it is, but it's only to make you a better Uncyclopedian by knocking this kind of shit off right now: this fucking sucks. The good news is: you're really not alone. A lot of Uncyclopedians start off their careers in exactly this way: they say "Let's write an article about Peanuts! Okay... Charlie Brown is a pimp who raped Mario in the ass; Lucy is a hooker who likes to show her vagina off to old men; Linus is a mentally ill psychopath who eats his own poop; Marci is a child prostitute who likes to suck off Charlie Brown..." Then, when our admins read it, they swiftly delete it. Because it has nothing at all to do with Peanuts; it's just random, uncreative vulgarity that a mischevious ten year old could write. This "characters" section is worse than unfunny: it's offensively unfunny. I'm not saying it's unfunny because it's offensive; I'm saying it's offensive because it's unfunny.
Okay, here's how an article is supposed to work. You've watched Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan, and you notice some things that are worth making fun of. That part's probably easy enough. Then, you think "How am I going to make fun of those things?" Then, you write an article that makes fun of those things.
Let me give you an example: take Dora the Explorer. Dora, I'm told, has a backpack that occasionally eats things and yells "Delicioso!" So, an article could feature Dora's backpack eating inappropriate things and yelling "Delicioso!"
That article should not, however, replace Dora's backpack with a giant vibrating dildo and say that Dora travels the world with a giant vibrating dildo on her back. Because that doesn't make fun of the show at all; it just randomly gives her a giant vibrating dildo, apparently for no other reason than to say "giant vibrating dildo."
So, let me give you an example, here. Kai-lan Chow, apparently, plays the tambourine for animals. You could poke fun at that, sure. You could say that no one wanted to hear a kid bragging about her third-world culture, so she's been relegated to spreading her message to animals. By banging a tambourine.
What you should not say is that she showed the world her pussy on American Idol.
Prose and formatting:
The prose isn't too bad, other than the incoherent "plot" section. There are a few places where "it's" is used in the place of "its." The formatting isn't very good; the long infobox and strange picture placement cause big chunks of white space on my screen. That shouldn't be too hard to fix.
It's nice when the pictures actually have something to do with the article. Dora the Explorer has very little to do with the article and should absolutely not be the first picture. (Yes, Ni-Hao Kiai-Lan has been called the Chinese Dora, but the first picture has to illustrate the article - it shouldn't just be a picture of something else). I have no idea whatsoever why there are pictures of Mao, Aristotle, or a meadow in the article. There does appear to be one picture of the show, and I'm glad that's at least in there.
So, I'm sorry for the discouraging Pee Review. This article, in its current incarnation, will definitely be deleted, and fixing it would mean starting over. And, to be honest with you, it's not a good place for a new Uncyclopedian to start. Writing articles about childrens' shows is very, very hard. Just ask the five people who tried, and failed, to write a good enough iCarly to stay on the site. We've deleted about twenty Barney articles, and about forty Teletubbies articles. They're just really, really difficult subject matter.
But, don't be too discouraged. A lot of new Uncyclopedians get a review like this when they're starting out. I got a review like this when I was new, for my horrible, god-awful article on Wendy Thomas, mascot of Wendy's. It made a lot of the same mistakes this article did, like randomly insisting that a cartoon character is a slut. Getting bitch-slapped by that review helped me write articles that survived deletion, and, eventually, became features.
If I were you, I'd start a new article from scratch. Think of something you particularly enjoy, and know a lot about, and think of things about it that are kind of ridiculous and can be made fun of. Then, write that article. That's usually the best way to get started. You also might want to read our little humor guide, UN:HTBFANJS; it can be helpful.