| Property | Value |
|---|
| rdfs:label | - Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/French Military
|
| rdfs:comment | - This is a rewrite of a piss-poor article (get it "pee review and all), hopefully this is better just checking to see what everyone thinks. Cheers. OK, I'll give it a once-over. -- 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Take a swift look at the English Military History section of England. The slant here is to emphasize the Englishness of the other nations who helped the English fight any given war. It's not fantastic itself, to be honest, but it is kind of amusing, and it may give you a few more ideas to play with.
|
| dcterms:subject | |
| Mcomment | |
| Pcomment | - Hmm, a couple of lists, most sections are not very long, some basic spelling and grammar errors such as "France revelled in its supposed empirical prowess, that kind of thing. Not brilliant. However, the formatting's fine, and it's not too bad.
|
| Icomment | - Heh, Napoleon on a motorbike. I like it. And a couple of other relevant pics too, not bad. Perhaps the captioning could be better, and you could lose the pink wig one quite easily, but overall not too shabby, so points accordingly.
|
| Pscore | |
| Ccomment | - So the French are cowards, and not very good at war. Woo, original! Seriously though, it's a lazy stereotype, and so an article relying on it either has to subvert it or take it to its logical cartoonish extreme. Failure to do either of these leaves an article that feels lazy and half cooked. I'd either go for the first option, or change tack, trying to explain how the French actually have a glorious and mighty military tradition, and "glossing over" the defeats and surrenders in comedic fashion.
|
| Cscore | |
| Hcomment | - OK, the good news: this is better that what was there before. The bad news: it's still not great by any stretch. It feels rushed, relies on lazy stereotypes, drops names , and generally isn't in great shape. It needs more work, in other words.
|
| Iscore | |
| Hscore | |
| Fcomment | - OK, what you've done so far is take something crap, and improve it to something kinda passable, but not really inspired. I'd like to see this taken up a few notches, to be honest, so think about the suggestions above and below, and consider re-working it from one of the viewpoints I mention. As it is, it's... Alright, I guess. Sorry to damn with faint praise, but this is an honest opinion.
|
| dbkwik:uncyclopedia/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate | |
| Signature | |
| abstract | - This is a rewrite of a piss-poor article (get it "pee review and all), hopefully this is better just checking to see what everyone thinks. Cheers. OK, I'll give it a once-over. -- 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Commentification: seriously, there's plenty to work with here. You barely touched on events prior to the 20th century for starters. There's the wars with the Roman Empire back when it was Gaul (you could always work in Asterix if you're short of inspiration for that), Charlemagne and the Carolingian Empire, the Battle of Hastings, The Hundred Years' War, The Thirty Years' War, Revolutionary Wars, ol' Napoleon and various others. Plenty of victories there, and lots of fuel to either ridicule the stereotype, or comedically try to defend it by brushing them aside and concentrating on the defeats. I'd seriously recommend following one of these courses, as it puts a slightly different spin on it, making things a little more interesting. Take a swift look at the English Military History section of England. The slant here is to emphasize the Englishness of the other nations who helped the English fight any given war. It's not fantastic itself, to be honest, but it is kind of amusing, and it may give you a few more ideas to play with. I hope you give these comments some thought. Please don't take this as a hatchet job, as it's not intended as such. You rewrote a terrible article - thanks! Now take the next step and really make it shine! And finally, this is only my opinion, others are available. And good luck! -- 15:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
|
