Very good. Every section has its own jokes. Well worked out structure increases the effect of the jokes.
The problem is that 'Hercule' and 'General Poirot' seemed to be overused after a while because your concept is to show that Hercule Poirot has always reigned over Belgium but at the same time, you don't really make an accent on this joke, so people who don't know anything about him don't understand you and may think that it was accidental. Not to make it so, rephrasing the sentences just a little bit would help (for example: instead of saying "president of Belgium, Hercule", "Hercule who at that time was the president of Belgium"). This won't really change your construction but the accent on your joke will show that this is purposeful and the sensation of repetitiveness will disappear.
Also, I didn't really understand how is Hannibal connected to all this. It is acceptable in an encyclopedia but doesn't make sense here.
Very good idea about mountains in Belgium and the training of BM Troops.
A very bright, interesting, original idea. Only the title of the article, itself, arouses reader's curiosity and makes him read until the end. Well-made connection with the real history. To improve it the only the thing you can do it is add something different, but I don't have any advice about it because I really like the article the way it is.
Prose and formatting:
Generally looks like a real encyclopedia which is here a positive side because it makes your information even funnier. The reason it is 7, is because you lose this impression during several moments of the article and also some words get repeated (for example "it was formed" in the "Formation" section).
At the end of the "Formation", the situation with Napoleon is confusing: he doesn't believe Belgians and thinks that it is a joke; and after, Belgians don't believe his reaction and think that French have no humor. Well, as well as I have understood from your article, Belgians were completely serious bout BM Troops: then why do they think that French have no humor?
Encyclopedia style is getting lost somewhere between quotes. It is hard to retrieve it after and the repetition of words such as 'fought', 'radiomast' make the task even harder, as in real encyclopedias, words a lot of different vocabulary is used.
Good general choice of images and funny comments. Nevertheless, there are some problems.
First of all, the Balaclava picture is not funny without the comment.
As the third one (Regimental flag) is introducing us to the Belgian Mountain Troops (that is what I think, maybe I didn't get your concept), than the beginning of the article would be a better place for it.
But the most important is that they help reading the article by making it funnier and more interesting, have good quality and are all relevant.
A very good choice of events and interpretation of history. I, personally, really liked Russian part. But, sometimes, it seems as if you lose your patience and want to finish the article as soon as possible: for example the end of the conflict with Russia; so you begin simply telling the story.
Although, I put a lot of comments, the article is very good! So, the most important parts to concentrate on are images, repetition of words, confusion created in some parts.
Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 18:46, April 12, 2013 (UTC)