Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Joseph Ducreux

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Joseph Ducreux

Ok, so Joseph Ducreux was indeed a famous portrait painter, and he really did paint the two paintings within my article on him. He was not in fact much of a pimp, but his best self-portrait says otherwise. Ducreux is the subject of a slowly growing internet meme, and since I find his works hilarious since he was so out of the box for an 18th century royal portrait painter, I thought I would help his meme grow.

please don't be too critical, and I would greatly appreciate a serious review as I would like to possibly see this article be nominated for something.

Thanks!

Skinfan13 10:10, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Ok never mind, I can't review this. Sorry for not saying something sooner I was so busy I had barely anytime to access the computer--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 02:47, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

bump

--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 11:23 EST 21 January, 2010

You know what? This has been here for far too long; I'll try and review it whenever I can. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:46, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. My 2nd opinion review was already done, so I guess this counts as the article's "first" review? idk, but I'd love a second opinion before I start gutting the thing. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 1103 EST 4 Feb 2010

Yeah, I'll get on it at some point. Hopefully over the weekend (though I'll be fairly busy), and if not soon after. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 06:31, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Take your time, I have a fairly busy weekend ahead as well, so no rush. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 00:30 EST 6 Feb 2010

Humour:	6.75	I honestly don't quite know what to think about this one. It starts off rather strong--I laughed out loud twice at the introduction alone--and then seems to fade down the stretch. You start off contrasting "playing the straight man" and clearly being funny well, and then eventually drift off into loose colloquial prose and jokes that boarder on nonsensical randomness. In short, there's a lot I liked, and a lot I didn't like. What I liked The concept is quite funny, as is the introduction where you introduce it. The jokes thereafter that deal with said concept are all solid in theory, but lose a bit when they're delivered because of the loose and colloquial way you deliver them. Case and point, your jello shot joke involving the Duke of Neboutuceduex. Instead of saying "nobody really remembers him," I would recommend something a little more scholarly-sounding to play up the contrast between the high-class/vulgar juxtaposition you've got going on. Something more along the lines of "The Duke died of alcohol poisoning, and has largely been lost to history" would be more appropriate, I think. Then again, my criticism has a lot to do with my own personal taste moreso than actual humor content, so take me with a grain of salt. What I didn't like It seems as though you run out of steam about halfway through, and the second half of the article seems to degrade into randomness. Your jokes about Picasso, Jack Daniels, and servants boys just seem like shots in the dark, quite frankly, and your bits about France being a Socialist haven totally break the tone of the article. I don't have any specific suggestions, but I would recommend altering those jokes entirely.
Concept:	8.5	This is the real strong point of the article, I think. Ducreux obviously wasn't an alcoholic pimp, but making an article based on the assumption he was with said assumption being based on his most famous portrait is pretty damn clever if you ask me.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	No spelling errors to speak of, but this article suffers a lot because of the tone you wrote it in, in my opinion. If you were to take a drier, more faux-academic approach, not only would you play up the French high-class/vulgar pimp guy juxtaposition you've got going on, but you would probably appeal to this article's eventual audience as well. Again, this criticism steams more from personal taste than content--after all, you've got no spelling errors--but in this case I really think a more academic-sounding tone is the way to go.
Images:	7.25	The images are all straightforward, fitting, and effective. Decreux's self portraits are somewhat funny when viewed by themselves, and when put into this context are even funnier. The second image isn't all that funny, obviously, but it's necessary, so whatever. Overall, you do a good job here.
Miscellaneous:	7.75	A little above your average, as I was a bit opinionated and overly-critical in parts. Overall, though, I think this can be feature-worthy with a bit of reworking.
Final Score:	36.75	Sorry this took so damn long.
Reviewer:	—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:43, February 8, 2010 (UTC)