`Lo, long time no see masters of pee review. Do your magic, tell what need to be worked. I have some specific doubts about the formatting (or lack thereof) of some parts and about the ending. Thanks. ~ 19:54, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
I have some time over the next 24 hours, and this is the first request that I saw, I will rescue another user from the PEE queue after. So yeah, 24 hours and I should have this done for you. --ChiefjusticeDS 19:59, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
The humour is pretty impressive and the article made me laugh a number of times. However, there are a couple of things that I would recommend that you consider. The first of these regards the running joke about Belgium. While the joke in itself is amusing and, for the most part, flows well with the article, there are a couple of trouble spots. The first of these is that the joke sometimes feels unnecessary or too long winded. For example "Some assume it is, potentially, for the Netherlands to gain access to the past, thereby reverting the 19th century Belgian Revolution and regaining control of this piece of real state. Because, as well know, Belgium should not exist." While I laughed at this bit, it feels like an uncomfortable jerk away from the tone of the article as it was before. The running joke feels as though it lasts too long here, whereas more subtle use, like here: "The common belief in the Dutch scientific community was that 'finally we can test subliminal conditioning on wide populations thereby allowing us to take over Belgium once more'" is more subtle and the joke naturally compliments what you are saying without needing further explanation. This is much more of a cosmetic change than a badly needed one, but still relevant. My only other point is that you very occasionally lose sight of what the article as a whole is referring to, that is, the experiment by GVB. Try to make sure you keep this idea in sight at all times, if you reread the article as though you have no prior knowledge you may notice that at times this isn't completely obvious. However this is not a major problem either, and the article is generally amusing regardless.
Right, your concept is fine and will amuse a wide spectrum of people, providing you give them a reasonable way of finding it in the first place (typing in the article name is like water torture with a computer). Otherwise your main difficulty is the tone. You start the article demonstrating fantastic use of the encyclopedic perspective to provide humour. However you fall into a very common trap and begin to lose the tone in places, saying things like "Your eyes do not fool you." While this is a minor complaint, it would be a shame to let it cause you problems. Otherwise you do pretty well here.
Prose and formatting:
The prose are reasonable but there are a couple of difficulties. However you are being reviewed by a fully fledged member of UN:PS so by the time you come back to the article the errors will have been rectified where I see them. However your score remains at it's prior level, because that is fair. Your formatting is pretty good, but there is one instance where I think you can do more with it. Try to avoid crushing pictures together, you have plenty of images and some space to shuffle them around in, so mess about with them and see what happens. Also there is one instance where you have a very large image next to a small one, meaning that the text is squeezed in at one point. Otherwise good enough work.
Superb, nothing to complain about, all that loses you the point is the formatting issues. But the images themselves are excellently chosen and very well considered, the captions are also well executed and genuinely amusing.
My overall grade of the article.
My overall grade says it all for this one, the article is intelligent and amusing and all it needs now is a couple of minor changes to take it to being superb. I would like to let you make these changes so I won't be running over to VFH right now. I hope you can make any necessary changes and that this article only gets better. Very good work, well done.