Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Napoleon III

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Napoleon III

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, "Louis Napoleon liked being Emperor. It put a big smile on his face and he was seen cackling, rubbing his hands together, and strutting around the formerly-presidential palace in Paris in a pair of his shinyest black boots and a cape (and nothing else) for several days after being formally given his new title." While the following is not: "Supposedly born to one of Napoleon Bonaparte's brothers, Little Luigi "Louis the Gay" AKA "STD" Bonaparte, Napoleon III was actually the product of one wet, drunken night of hot incest when Napoleon boned his 16 year old step-daughter/sister in law, Hortense Beauharnais (daughter of Josephine, and Louis' wife) because Josephine was sterile. Voila! 9 months later we have a retard!" 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: his policy of supporting Italian unification (i.e. creating great powers on France's borders) his contradictory policy of supporting the papal states His numerous affairs (the wikipedia article mentions several mistresses) He spoke French with a German accent His complete lack of political experience, and getting to power solely on the basis of coming from a royal family 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 Some of your paragraphs look too long. As a rule, long paragraphs are good. However, it looks like some of your paragraphs should be split. Also, you have one paragraph per section. That generally isn't a good sign. (It means you are either covering the material too quickly, or you have run-on paragraphs. It you case, it looks like a bit of both.) You have alot of material under you the 3rd level two header (Emperor of France), probably more than half. That might fix itself as you add more content. You have a couple one line paragraphs. That isn't too bad, as you have several long paragraphs, but that is still an issue. Try to divide the paragraphs more evenly if possible.
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: "All was not well in the Kingdom of France and its restored monarchy was poised to fall in a second wave of popular disgust at kings being dicks." 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: "King Louis Phillipe was noted for his political moderation and his avoidance risky military actions. Naturally, such a policy was detested by the French populace, who desired political radicalism, demagoguery, and war." 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)