Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Remi Gaillard

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Remi Gaillard

Sir ScottPat Icons-flag-gb Scotland Flag 1 UnS CUN VFH (talk) 17:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Alright mate. Are you still wanting this looked at? I can't help but notice you've had quite a long wait. I'll happily review it over the next few days if you do. --ChiefjusticePSX 20:28, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
Added 17:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

[[Template:Review request/{{#time: ymd|17:08, April 26, 2013 (UTC)]]

edit Reviewed

So I finally got down to it! Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 21:36, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer details

A little bit about the reviewer

{{{Reviewer}}}

Humour

How and why is it funny? Any suggestions?

7

Hi! You said that Remi Gaillard was "almost a fan based article but hopefully contains some comedy". Well, I am glad to reassure you in your hopes: it does contain comedy! However, this doesn't mean that the article doesn't have the fan aspect to it, or that there is no more work to be done. On the contrary...

Remi Gaillard t

Rémi Gaillard, wearing a t-shirt that bares the inscription: "I'm a popular guy on TV".

First of all, repetition. I'll mention it again in the Concept section of this review and I'll talk about repetition of words in Prose, but here I would like to make an accent on repetition of actual ideas. I felt that many things that I've read have already been said previously but only in different words. This doesn't work well with humour writing, unless you find a way to express the same idea many times in original ways or make emphasize the fact that you are repeating it. In this case, I think you could remove extra sentences and try to find something else you can talk about, if you are repeating yourself. Consider these phrases in the introduction:

  1. "Remi Gaillard is a well-known, respected French actor and director."
  2. "Remi Gaillard is probably the second most well-known and great [person] in France."

After this, the statement in Film Career - "Remi Gaillard is best known for the direction of his movies and his actorial role in them" - is pointless, as the only thing it says is that Remi is well-known and that he is well-known for his movies, something which we know already. This phrase will be good in the introduction (but not together with the two others), as it even states less than the reader knows by the time he reaches it. I have seen some other examples, such as the omnipresent theme of realism and truth in Remi's movies.

The most problematic section, I thought, was the introduction, especially the very first paragraph of your article, as it announced several jokes that would be told later in the article (for example, the one which I liked very much about the heroism of a soldier who chases all the British tourists from a beach) and thus remove the surprise effect, when the reader reaches the sections where everything is explained in details. Try keeping a bit more suspense, as you did with the Astronaut Career, for example (I personally did not expect these jokes to come and I found that part very successful).

There are some minor issues as well.

  • In the introduction, Remi's devise seems like an undeveloped joke. First of all, I haven't heard of him being in prison for anything he did, second, it is hard to imagine that "hilarious pranks" that make you "the enemy of the French state" can inspire people from Haiti to Japan, because you didn't explain the relevance of that crossed out phrase to the rest of the introduction. Finally, you could also search for a deeper meaning in this motto. Originally, it comes from a French proverb which, translated in English, sounds like "It is by forging that one becomes a blacksmith".[1] You could even link that to the fact that Remi had many different careers (and why not one of a blacksmith?). Also, paraphrasing Wikipedia, "n'importe quoi" (whatever) implies something silly, while "n'importe qui" (whoever) can imply greatness. These are just ideas.
  • In the introduction (as well), the B.A.G.U.E.T.T.E. awards need some background information, even though you invented them. What you could do without changing a lot the introduction, is make a funny link from "B.A.G.U.E.T.T.E." to a page which would make it a bit clearer whether you joke is that the award in question is not well-known and is given to not that notable directors or if it's something else.
  • In the Film Career, the joke in "He has made many different genres of movies from Epics (Violence and war type) all the way to Epics (Surrendering type)." would've been more effective, if you phrased it a bit differently: "He has made many different genres of movies from violence and war type Epics all the way to the surrendering type Epics".

Apart from that, I've found the humour in your article well-developed and I liked the way in which you told the story behind every film. However there are other aspects of the article, such as prose, that challenge your humour.

Concept

How good is an idea behind the article?

6

I enjoyed reading your page, and even re-reading it, as the ideas were well thought out and the way in which they were expressed was very clear. But you have two main challenges, what concerns your concept.

The fan aspect shows itself when you talk about his "greatness" and the "greatness" of his productions. I've noticed plenty of adjectives in superlative: "most famous", "second most well-known and great", "best", "greatest", not counting many other adjectives, that transmit an opinion or a feeling about Remi, such as "astounding" and "hilarious".

While some of them help make the information more ridiculous (as Remi hasn't actually produced any major blockbusters, or Epics, and hasn't had and astounding football career), the abundance of them still makes it hard to differentiate between objective information told in the article (that Remi produced many "films", one of which is "Saving Private Remi") from the subjective (Remi's greatest film is "Saving Private Remi") and some of them do not even do that. For instance, "hilarious pranks on people" is exactly what your opinion about the pranks he makes, and this is not to a least degree ironic.

Remi Gaillard fs

Rémi, enjoying one of his careers.

The best solution, as for me, would be to delete many references to the greatness of any particular production, and to try to say the same thing but in an objective tone. In addition, you yourself do it extremely well: for instance, at the end of the Rubbish Fuzz, you talk about the impact the film had on education, without giving your personal opinion (or it seems so), and I thought that this was one of the best jokes in the article.

The updates to the article are another important thing to focus on. You call "Saving Private Remi" his most recent film, but he shot plenty of videos after that, and in 2013 he even starred in a real movie about himself, called "N'importe qui"[2]. If you mention the fact that he is a filmmaker and an actor, even ironically, and don't talk about his real film career, well, only this might spoil the article, because it will be outdated.

What concerns his videos, have you watched his Free sex (pictured), which caused a lot of controversy in France? As you enjoy inventing Remi's careers based on his videos, this production of his can be a great source for inspiration. At the same time, it is a tough path, as you'll have to follow all his activity and make constant updates. Remi Gaillard posts his videos on his website (N'importe qui) and you can also check the Wikipedia article on him, to see what major events happen in his life. But I am sure that these updates are necessary and will only help your humour!

Prose and Formatting

How good does it look and how well does it read?

4

When I read the article, the contrasts of your writing style were what struck me the most about it. There were some particular phrases I loved and thought that your ideas couldn't have been expressed in a better way, such as "The French government promptly awarded him the Medal de Honoure (You can guess that translation) for his gallant act and the moment was marked as a peak in the endeavours of French technology", but some of them needed a very serious rephrasing and I wonder if you read them at least once, after you wrote them.

I know that it's annoying to proofread what you've just written, but it is essential even for the humour of the article. Try not doing it all at once but rather re-read every section one by one, like what I'm trying to do with Napoleonic Wars. I partly proofread your article myself, but I concentrated on spelling and grammar mistakes, rather than on the irregularities of the writing style.

I am not giving the prose a high grade, because I felt that it was the only thing that really hampered the reading of your article and if not for that, it could even reach Votes for Highlight. I have identified two important problems, with which you need to deal, to make this a great and funny piece.

  • Repetition of words: While it's a valid humour technique, in Remi Gaillard there are many unnecessary and accidental - I presume - repetitions of words and sometimes even phrases. For example:
  1. ""Saving Private Remi" [...] is a film about a French soldier storming the Normandy beaches and single-handedly wiping out the British tourists on the beach."[3]
  2. "To make it more realistic Remi adds in a factor [...], which was to portray the tourists who happened to go to the beach that day and show the civilian casualties that were incurred on that day."[4]
  3. "His second major film was Rocky dans La Francois (English translation: Rocky in France). Many critics claim that this film did not have an original idea behind it and shouldn't therefore be counted as one of Remi's greatest films however the point of the film, yet again [...]."[5]

In the second example, the word "film" is repeated four times in two sentences. Your most recurrent words are: film(s), realism/realistic, cyclist in My Tour of France, police in Rubbish Fuzz and the Moon in Astronaut Career.

  • Long sentences: they challenge the reader's understanding of the story and make grammar mistakes more likely.

Don't you think that ""This really changed the way that artists think about their work in the 21st Century no longer is it all about profit and Capitalism but the arts industry is about Socialist things such as sharing and kindness"[6] is a lot less comprehensible than "Such Remi's actions influenced his contemporaries and entirely re-established modern art, reintroducing there many important values, such as kindness. Art ceased to be a Capitalist movement"? And isn't the phrase "France's poor industry was on strike the week of the supposed launch" more effective than ""The French has a poor industry and the industry was on strike on the week of the supposed launch"[7]?

Images

How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting?

6
Remi Gaillard football

Rémi Gaillard, saluting his fans after a successful match.

The images you are using in Remi Gaillard are very good, as they reinforce the jokes made in the article. I particularly liked the Moon landings picture and it would be great if you had more images edited in this way, as your edits to a picture generally make it fit the article better and make it more original.

The main problem is how you use them. The resolution of three middle pictures (the two football ones and the one about Rocky) is something that could be improved on, and if you can't find the pictures you want with a good resolution, try simply searching for pictures of Remi Gaillard and then finding the ones which could fit your article. Something else that might bother the reader is the size of the images, as they can only illustrate your work effectively, if you can see them properly.

Finally - the captions.

  • "The controversial picture of the French Moon landings" is great, as is "Remi celebrates the win against SC Bastia".
  • The first one could be used with some clarifications about what film Remi Gaillard is explaining, because it is a photo, which was taken at a specific moment, and so the caption should relate to something specific as well.
  • "It's an open goal" would sound more encyclopedic if you said "Remi Gaillard scores an open goal".
  • "Remi Gaillard's most famous film" could be also turned in a sentence, and in its current form it just repeats what is already stated in the article.
  • Finally, the Rocky image is without a caption! While it can speak for itself, it is generally better to comment on any image that is in a humour article, unless you made it yourself, as the reader won't understand what you want to say with the help of that illustration, unless you say it yourself.
Miscellaneous

The article's overall quality - that indefinable something.

9

I very much appreciated the way in which you treated the story behind each "film". It will be great to see any more such stories about other Remi's videos.

Summary

An overall summation of the article.

All in all, your article is in a good shape, and, furthermore, it's going to be funny even for a reader who won't know a thing about Remi Gaillard. The most important areas to concentrate on are prose and concept, and don't be afraid of rewriting sections entirely if the phrasing is too complex and deleting unnecessary material.

The last but not the least, I advise reading Wikipedia's article on the comedian, as information expressed in a very serious way can sometimes be more ridiculous than information in a humour article. For example, "After losing his job at a shoe store, Rémi began to use his free time to have fun and run pranks on the public."

Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 21:36, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
{{{ReviewLite}}}
This was a Pee Review by Anton (talk) Uncyclopedia United 21:36, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

edit References

  1. Source: WP:Rémi Gaillard
  2. Trailer of "N'importe qui" with English subtitles
  3. Introduction
  4. Saving Private Remi
  5. Rocky in France
  6. Film Career
  7. Astronaut Career
Personal tools
projects