Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Firearm attachments

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

Homosexuality in the British military

Here you go. --nldr 12:51, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, could Homosexuality in the British military be reviewed instead of this article? I'm not likely to bother to edit Firearm attachments much more. --nldr 15:57, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

This review is mine! MINE! ~ 13:36, Apr 3, 2010

Thanks, sir. --nldr 13:43, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	8.5	General Comments This article is awesome! It made me go through a few days of wishing I was British, because it seems that British people (and Uncyclopedians) write the best comedy. I've also noticed that Britain seems to have an abnormally large number of gay people in it's history. I'm actually trying to write an article about one right now, on a writer who was also in the military for a while, but it's not actually that funny due to me not being British. (I'm not looking for help or anything, no, not me.) So, anyway, my general impression is pretty good. It's a little dry at the beginning but gets very good towards the end; there is only one thing I had a problem with, and that is the integration of the first person voice with the rest of its more expositional narration. Lead-in This is well-written and not actually that funny, but it's ok considering that this is your intro, with the playing of the straight man thing and all. And since your topic itself is fairly interesting, along with your steady FA-like prose, this keeps people reading. The first two paragraphs sounds official and report-like, with a little bias present. The only problem is in the third paragraph when you start using "I", without ever introducing who this "I" is. This is a very sudden and jolting change in style. Another thing is the context in which this article is presented is not given. Is the soldier giving a speech on the roles of homosexuals? Is it a report? Is it an encyclopaedic entry? An "educational conversation"? So my suggestion to you for both these problems is to introduce the speaker/writer in the first paragraph, along with the reason and the type of presentation he's giving. History Most of my understanding of the history of British homosexuals I got from reading E.M. Forster's Maurice. Awesome book, by the way, and a little miffed that you didn't mention E.M. Forster, but you don't really have to. It's not really possible to include them all, is it? Since there were so many of them. In the third paragraph you also start using more "I's". One thing I've noticed is that when you start using I's, they're all concentrated in a single paragraph, while other paragraphs have almost no I's at all. This uneven spread may be a contributing factor to your change of style problem. This problem is also particularly noticeable in parts where the narrator actually talks about himself. This shift from talking about history to talking about himself seems very awkward to me. If I were to suggest something it would be to make the spread of "I's" and talking about self more even, or you could just cut out the parts of the narrator talking about himself. Anyway, I liked: And it's needs. Whatever they may be. it responded affirmatively. I concluded that artificial intelligence had a long time to go until it could replicate humanity. Lesbians are still useless - damn, you're right. Oscar Wilde nearly died of exhaustion in that film with Stephen Fry in it boundary-stretching décor genres - ooh, vulgar Reasons for permitting homosexuals in the British military I liked the last four dot points, and I think they set up for my favourite part of the article, "homosexual roles in the military", very well. Also - who'll come in to replace them, certainly. Hm. - love the awkwardness here. Other than that there's nothing much to say. Homosexual figures in the military didn't let this interfere with their shooting practice, and neither should you. - the use of "you" suggests that the narrator is talking to an audience of heterosexual soldiers, however this is not really made clear. You should clarify this in the first paragraph to establish the all-important context for this article. Also, liked - only to tell them that it would be absolutely fine in the modern British army, were they alive today. In the biographical sections I liked: Even in peace did a English King conquer a King of France And infect him with AIDs inherently envious of all my life until very, very recently all the quotes and evidences of Kitchener's waywardness was the most sensible way to mention another man's excessive display of homosexuality All of which can be admitted in the army should they wish to do so anytime too early for the Turkish sex trade interrogate with total style and consideration for the masochistic enemy Hmmm, I should basically give up listing these things as I liked everything. In reviews I normally list out everything that I smiled or laughed at, just to show the writer what they're doing right, and there are usually not this many things to list! Anyway, I'm not listing anything anymore, unless something exceptional comes up. I basically liked everything, and found no problem with anything. Especially liked "Homosexual roles in the military", which I felt was a very fitting end. The narrator preaches tolerance, but then turns around and apply stereotypes to the homosexuals. Completely brilliant! "Decoy trooper" was especially funny, as well. backgrounds: rich, poor, foreign, ignorant and finally homosexual - and then - just as long as there aren't any dirty foreigners in the forces - this is a contradiction. Just remove the foreign from the first one. Your sources, I did not actually bother to read them. With my slow internet connection it will be a month before they all load up. I felt that your article itself gave really good information, anyway, and I know enough about the context to not need to read your sources. This is good. I just don't know why they're there. I mean, unless your narrator is presenting some official research report or something, if so, mention this.
Concept:	8.5	The concept is good, especially the choice of topic, which is the kind that practically writes itself. What I don't particularly understand is why you choose to have a first person narrator in the first place? I mean, parts of the article were practically encyclopedic, and I just feel it ruins the tone when the narrator suddenly pops up and talks about himself. When the narrator is not talking about himself, but still uses "I", such as "but I've been told to keep the rampant homophobia in the recruiting office under wraps", it doesn't come off as awkward, though. So I guess the main issue might be the change in subject matter. Another thing is that I liked the hesitance and the attempts at political correctness that the narrator goes through. Which wont be there anymore if you get rid of him, so don't. I also liked the subtle and uncomfortable feelings that the narrator has.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	Geh, for a Brit you sure make a lot of mistakes. Try to proofread yourself by finding the mistakes that I've missed. Read it out loud to yourself if you have to. Here are the ones that I've spotted: As long with more guns - Along with more guns? Why indeed, if a man cannot prove his salt with regular visits to rugby matches, huge swigs of bitter, a sampling of fish and chips at least once a week, or any other pastimes that define this country, he may well be a nefarious homosexual. - This sentence confused me, with the usage of "why" I thought it was a question. Which might just be me and my non-British ways, but can't you cut out the "why"? have been masterminded the realm to the top of it's class - what is this trying to say? responsible to turning - responsible for turning Appraising gay people and their rights has become a staple in today's society, or at least appreciation of their existence. - this sentence structure is weird. The tag-on doesn't really fit to me. Maybe add a "the" in front of "appreciation", or reword it somehow? Or not? about it's fineness - its pint-spilling misdemenours in future - misdemeanours in the future had it's reputation - its immediately very receptacle - receptive? I'm not sure about your use of ellipses... Not sure at all... Look them up if you want to be a perfectionist... did a English King conquer - an No that there is any - not it'll be thoughtful and warlike king - be a thoughtful absurd they may be - as they may? illustrious texts of which carry homosexual allusions - which carried? can't help that notice that - but notice
Images:	8	The images are quite good. There is certainly enough of them for your article length. Most of them were funny, if they were not funny by themselves they had good captions. Which is great, considering that a lot of articles I've reviewed got really low image scores. Especially liked the Spartan one and the one with the fairy soldier. There is no advice I can give on this one because they were all very good. The reason it got a slightly lower score than your humour was because its degree of funny was less than that contained in the text.
Miscellaneous:	8.5	I think a lot of people would vote for this as it is. Just follow my suggestions if you want to be a perfectionist. Anyway, off to VFH you go!
Final Score:	40	Find me on my talk page.
Reviewer:	~ 16:10, Apr 3, 2010