Talk:Ministries of the UK Government

Here is the Pee Review

Humour:	8.5	I think that your work is very well organized and all the jokes are funny. I really liked the parts about the water contamination, the plebs, The Fence Ministry, etc., etc. I appreciated the fact that you know well what you are talking about but that the article does not go into very complicated politics and all and just parodies different ministries. The only suggestion I would have is to link all the parts of the article together. Shabidoo said: "There seems to be a lack of cohesion/concept between the sections". I agree with Shabidoo here, as I keep on getting the impression that all the different sections are independent from each other. It would be cool if you add a little introduction at the beginning of the "Ministries" section, as there you just talk about different ministries (which are actually very funny parodies of the real ones) and do mot say much about them in general, if you get what I mean. To be even clearer, you have a very good introduction to the article, where you talk about the Ministers, the definition of Ministries, etc., but you do not look at their general functions as one system. You do no give the connection between the Ministry of The Fence and all the others, you do not say how is the Ministry of Pessimism different from the Ministry of tha Administrative Affairs, for instance. It is as if you were analyzing all the details of the machine but not concluding on it as a whole. I also did not understand whether the Ministry of Magic is a parody of some other ministry or not, as all the other joke-ministries do parody something.
Concept:	8	I talked about your concept in the last section, as it was also very much connected with the humour of the article. So there is only one thing I would like to add here: I generally do not like extremely long articles and prefer the normal ones; however, in your case, the topic is very important and I think that you did not expand it enough. Me, personally, I would like to see "History" (when such a system began to exist, etc.) and "Side-effects" (of the Ministries, of course). Otherwise, I think that you really did a nice job and the fact that you nominated the article for VFH is not a mistake.
Prose and formatting:	6	I proofread your article myself and foxed several sentences and below is the record of everything I have noticed As I always say, red links spoil the look of the article. I understand that you are probably planning planning to make all these articles (red links in the roght box) but can't you include the links to them only after you actually make them? I know that this is a template but isn't it you who created it? I found some mistakes in the article and corrected mist of them myself. Below is everything I did not correct: A seat is in the cabinet, not on the cabinet. (Introduction) The government hasn't figured out what they do and ignores them. The government ignores, not the ministries. (Introduction) I think that it is "to create policies" and not "policy". However, I might be wrong, though. (The ministry buildings) "The government is barely taking in any money" instead of "is taking in barely". By the way, "them" in the same sentence does not sound very well, and I feel that it would be better if it was replaced with the passive voice. (The ministry buildings) I don't remember if I have already mentioned this to you or not (perhaps, in the Pee Review of Schlieffen Plan) but you very often say "WW2". While this is correct, I haven't seen any encyclopedias using this abbreviation and do not think that it would be complicated to spell it "the Second World War" or "the World War 2". Certain sentences really needed to be rephrased, as they were really long and complicated. In addition to this, you do not use commas much, and this makes them even more difficult for understanding. See the difference between the sentences you have just read and the one below? Certain sentences really needed to be rephrased as they were really long and complicated as the fact that you do not use commas much makes them even more difficult for understanding. Also, what I saw throughout your article, is the fact that you tell a joke, then repeat it and then explain it. Or, sometimes, the order is different. For example, I deleted the translation of the sentence about Big Brother, as it is comprehensible already.
Images:	7	I liked the images you were using but think that, first of all, the main first image combines all the logos of different ministries and I would prefer them to be separate and to be placed in the relevant sections of the article. Also, the image of the Ministers of Pessimism hailing the Prime Minister is not connected to the text. You did not talk about this in the "Pessimism" section, did you?
Miscellaneous:	7.4	Pretty much your average score.
Final Score:	36.9	I am sure that the article can be improved on and would advise you to do it, as soon as possible, considering the fact that it is on VFH already. Please, look at my proofreading, do the same in some places where I haven't done the tidying-up, add one or two paragraphs to the article (see Humor and Concept) and find a way to spread all the Ministries' logos across the article, not to have all of them in the introduction. But very nice job, all in all, keep on doing as well as now and do not be afraid of any improvements!
Reviewer:	Anton (talk) 10:42, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Anton (talk) 10:44, August 20, 2013 (UTC)