Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Kurdish Military Industries (at fucking last)

Kurdish Military Industries

Rewritten. • FreddIs Great In Bedd • • • 03:53 • Saturday, 13-03-2010

I'll get on this, 24-48 hours --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 00:40 EST 18 Mar, 2010

You're in the military, right? Good, you'll like this one.. Ok, my concept of the article is "pathetic military industries," and I believe we (me and SPIKE) went astray in some parts. Tell us where. Also, feel free to edit the article, and If you want, you can count yourself a co-author. • FreddIs Great In Bedd • • • 10:08 • Friday, 19-03-2010

Cool stuff, I'll be finishing this up in the next few hours. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 22:21 EST 20 Mar, 2010

Review this version, please. • FreddIs Great In Bedd • • • 04:55 • Sunday, 21-03-2010

Sure thing. Actually, I ran into a speed bump here in the real world, I'll have to complete the review tomorrow, hope that's not a problem. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 01:55 EST 21 Mar, 2010

And finally, after I finish up my psychology paper in the next hour I'll put the finishing touches on my review, hopefully it'll be worth the wait! --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 21:38 EST 2010

For future reference, you better try and do the reivew on the same day you booked it. I'm saying this because I don't want you to face the wrath of Chiefjustice or, worst, UU, like I did--DirectorWILLYOU 333Talk IF YOU DARE 02:06, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Humour:	8.5	The way I review, I generally put the majority of my comments and suggestions in the humor section. This allows me to be lazy keep all of my thoughts organized. I'll give you my first impressions after one read through and then go in for a more detailed look. Initial Impressions Ok, I was pleasantly surprised by the content on this one. I think the funniest bits of this are the details within the text that make it sound believable. There are a few minor tone issues and some very noticeable grammar errors, but the foundations of this piece are solid. I also have a few issues I'll touch on with the title of the article. Overall, pretty good effort upfront. Section by Section I'll address the majority of grammar in the prose section and the title issues I have under concept. Introduction This section suffers a little from an inconsistency of message. You start out with the right idea in that you're outlining the basic information about the subject much the way a wikipedia article on this 'company' would. However, you run into some issues with how you present the company's viewpoint. For example, you mention that the company has a reputation for "production of innovative, high-technology weaponry," but the company's own slogan is "Cheap and Ineffective" which doesn't make much sense. It's fairly clear to the reader that the products they make are inferior or are going to inadvertently appear that way in the article. That much should not be so clear to the company or its clientele in-universe if the company has a positive reputation. The arms reviewer also comes across as a western entity, which would rightly point out that the stuff they make is crap, but the KMI wouldn't know that, nor would their customers. This is actually subtly much funnier than the company coming out and admitting they suck. Also, I should address the initial grammar mistakes here because I believe it is relevant to the humor of the article. The grammar mistakes might be intentional, I'm not sure, kind of like a person from the KMI wrote the article themselves and isn't proficient with English. This is ok, but the mistakes need to be more frequent a pronounced if this is the case to make it more obvious, much in the way Sacha Cohen slurs his English in "Borat". Along these lines, this needs to be done throughout the entire article, there are tone inconsistencies in terms of point of view throughout. I can see it one of two ways: the aforementioned point of view of an employee writing the article in broken English, which is funny, or an "impartial" encyclopedia entry that just can't ignore or get around how terrible the company is. Both points of view are equally funny imo, but you have to choose one and stick with it. My gut says to go with the impartial point of view, it allows a lot more room for sarcasm. The reason I brought up the grammar and point of view here is because the introduction is important for setting up the tone for the rest of the article. These are the vibes I got in the introduction that weren't continued later on. Origins (vests) 1st gen I'm not going to lie, the tie in of the development of the suicide bomber vest to doctor-assisted suicide made me audibly laugh, that's hard to do with written humor for me. This is very funny. To this affect, I love the first paragraph, which is one of my favorite parts of the article. The second paragraph kind of derails all of that for me. The long explanation of how it works didn't really jive well the first paragraphs content and tone and then you betray the doctor-assisted suicide angle by talking about, "reconsider[ing] his decision, or to glory in his self-sacrifice and expectantly look-forward to the 99 virgins awaiting him in paradise" which completely implies jihadi suicide bombing. getting technical too, I would point out that it is 72 virgins, but that is beside the point. sticking along the lines of doctor-assisted suicide in this section is funnier. You return to form a bit with the third paragraph. I would encourage you to add a bit about how the vest was starting to be illegally used by terrorists or something. I think it would be a good seed to plant to imply subtly that KMI knows about this use and tolerates the practice secretly. The key is subtly though, and they should publicly think its terrible (which is why the recall the product). Perhaps implying they are really recalling the product in order to r&d a more effective 'weapon' would be funny. The other approach would be to completely not mention or imply any of this, which you do a fairly good job of with the current state of the section. For this section I would suggest significantly altering or even completely deleting the 2nd paragraph. 2nd Gen You do some really good things with this section, it doesn't carry the same shock laughs that the first section did, but it is still pretty funny. I think you should really subtly imply that the company's outrage is feigned in this section, but it should be fairly obvious, especially when they switch over from 'medical' to 'military'. By not really selling the switch hard in the article from the company's perspective I feel as though you missed out on a really good opportunity for some laughs. The rest is good and funny. 3rd Gen A quick point, 'plastic explosives' is a common misnomer, it is actually "plastique" from a technical and professional standpoint. Not a big deal though. I like the bit about Tehran's fashion week, the jab at the intelligence of the bombers is also done pretty well, i wouldn't change anything about that line, the delivery works very well. The "multi-thousand dollar corporation" line got an audible laugh out of me as well, nice job. The camel-turd bit comes off as just a little bit too low-brow for the overall tone of the piece. The billboard bit is pretty funny too. If what you're doing there is implying a middle eastern man is modeling a burqa on an advertisement, that's pretty funny. small arms JAR yeah the name's predictable, but its still funny lol. I loved the part about employee of the month too. Now, I want to point out that even though I said earlier that the company shouldn't appear to be aware of its own mediocrity, when you say that the company wanted to combine the unreliability of the ar-15 with the inaccuracy of the AK, the funny totally outweighs the tone consistency. This joke is hereby exempt from the 'rule' lol. Now, to make this even funnier for gun nuts like me, the ak is known for its rugged reliability, the m16 for its accuracy. The 16 however is lighter, but jams more frequently. You've captured this pretty well and its funny, but for the benefit of the average internet user, I would change ar-15 to m16, everyone is familiar with m16. I love non sequitur humor like this: "It was a huge success, with over 900 units delivered worldwide." AJR I won't go into agonizing detail, but this is hilarious for again, gun guys. It's like some form of retarded phallic pride with the number of rails your piece has, it's exactly the kind of thing the average middle eastern man would treasure lol. This section is high-speed low-drag as we ground-pounding military yahoos say. ak47 upgrade YES. that is all lol The rest I love the defense industries bit. Its pretty well put together and funny. I think the flight school bit doesn't mesh with the overall feel of the article and isn't incredibly funny, I would just cut that out, it seems like a poor note to end the article on, kind of like a whimper instead of a bang. The other products section has potential, but I also feel that this is overall fairly extraneous. The article would be just as funny without it, and could easily end with the defense industries section or a hypothetical future outlook section. The last two sections feel like it drags the article on too long. just my feelings. Final humor comments smashing job, a pleasant surprise
Concept:	7	Right, I'll spend most of this section addressing the article name concerns I have. First and foremost though, the concept of the article content, the "pathetic military industries" is pretty good. I know the PEEING scoring guidelines offer 7 as an "average" score, but I feel a score of 5 captures the concept of average much better than 7 does. Therefore, your score of 7 does not represent average creativity, but rather a fairly solid concept. I would be inclined to give a higher score if the article had a different title. Here's why: The article title is for "Kurdistan" but the location of the company is overwhelmingly irrelevant to the actual content you've created. However, the title implies certain things in relation to the content of the article. The article implies the company is a huge supporter of terrorism, therefore Kurdistan must represent a terrorist region, which isn't really the case. The same is implied for Turkmenistan, which isn't really. I would replace Turkmenistan with Chechnya in the article. In terms of Kurdistan though, The setting and nationality is completely off-base for what you have here. I would encourage you to pick a lesser known region of maybe northern Africa or elsewhere in the Islamic world that is in fact a supporter of terrorism. I feel pretty strongly about this point, I think it would go a long way to improving the article for those of us who realize this, which may be more people than you think. A region I could possibly suggest would be Libya, or even Oman or Yemen which are much more traditionally associated with propagating terrorism rather than receiving it. Otherwise you're solid on concept.
Prose and formatting:	6.5	Grammar issues already addressed aside, there are others scattered throughout the article, but the greatest concentration of them are in the introduction. At this point I would encourage you to completely touch those up, as well as the others. I would do a thorough look over in order to catch these errors. The table for the JAR specs is also rather uninteresting in addition to hogging space and not being funny at all, I would either edit it significantly or just get rid of it (I would lean toward just doing away with the table). The image gallery at the end is a little bit big too, and I've already commented on that in the humor section I believe, so moving on... You have a significant lack of blue-links. I would take some time to go through and add some more of them throughout your article.
Images:	9	This is probably the best part of the article. I really like all of the images and captions you have, especially the employee and ak47 pictures. The captions are spot-on as well, especially the one to the picture of the guy on fire, that made me chuckle quite a bit. The exceptions to these good parts are apparent, but the overall use of images here is excellent. my exceptions are: the first image. while not necessarily a bad image, it is very small and there is a lot of negative space surrounding the image and text here. I would enlarge the image. stinger picture is a little bland, but definitely not a problem. The image galleries. These really don't add much humor, take up space, and the size and clarity of the pictures are limited. some are vague and contain no explaining captions.
Miscellaneous:	8.5	my level of enjoyment from reading the article
Final Score:	39.5	great start you have here! Now here's my bulleted list of things to do to make this better: change the article title so that its a different region enlarge the first picture consistency of tone and point of view get rid of the specs table or change it grammar remove the flight school section remove the image galleries at the end this isn't the end all list of course (or I wouldn't have spent all this time on the review lol), but just a quick summary. I'm flattered that you'd like to include me in the writing process, but I really want to see how you guys finish the article since I really like what you have so far. Also, as always, if you have questions or comments, please don't hesitate to drop me a line.
Reviewer:	--Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 02:01 EST 23 Mar, 2010