Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:DeeJaay Batoushai/Don Bosco

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:DeeJaay Batoushai/Don Bosco

Please proof read. First article I have wrote so yes, won't be all shiny.DeeJaay Batoushai (talk) 15:46, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Humour:	5.5	Getting there. To begin with, you have mistranslated the quote from Don. Apart from that my only complaint would be redundancy. You have a set of points that you have repeated a few times over - homosexuality, sexual openness, sexual pleasuring, sexual abstinence or lack thereof, and other stuff along those lines. Too much of it. The funniest thing is that every bit not involving any sexual stuff is way funnier. Sure, all that stuff about spanking is funny to fourteen-year-olds who hate their teachers, so don't be disheartened, make them read the article. Moving on to what can be improved. I'll take it up section by section. Introduction - It's okay. And homoerotic humour has just begun. It's always funny the first time. The Salesian-salesman joke works. Management - You've hyperlinked man. Why don't you link in a funnier manner, like this? Also, expand this section a bit - add a paragraph on the father principal. Admissions - This is where the sexual jokes are overdone and no longer seem funny. Rewrite. Pulling wedgies? Seriously? You can do better than that. Education - A good first para followed by a stale second. What I said about too much sexual humour. You can remove it without being any less funny. Festivals and ECA - More sex humour aside, there is little to laugh at. The competition names are creative, sure. Do one thing, remove all that alcohol-marijuana-orgy stuff from the first para. Keep the Tera Patrick bit though. Philanthropy - Good. You can expand. Expanding this is easy. No, I'm not getting my hands dirty. Alumni - Your redeemer, and funniest section of the article. I feel obliged to thank you for not including any more wedgie-pulling.
Concept:	6	Cookie. Not sure if funny article or expressing haetz towards DBS, but who cares, it's a bit funny. The concept is a bit localised but that's okay. Your presentation of the concept affects this score. So I should tell you, I've docked a point or two for the overuse of sexual humour. Here's a tip - you're not funny till you can be funny without being dirty.
Prose and formatting:	8	Okay. No complaints except a few typos (I've done a proofreading anyway) and loose grammar. And just btw, it will be Catching the Don is not only difficult, but impossible.
Images:	7	Nice. The first three images set up a good impression. The alumni pic completes it.
Miscellaneous:	5.5	Overview. Seriously speaking, replace some sexual humour with nice, witty stuff. Or slapstick, which you're evidently better at. It'll be tons better. I mean, look at the Alumni section, then read the Admissions section. You see what I'm trying to say? You're funnier when you're not forcefully including a masturbating fr. rev. to get a laugh. You can add a few sections, like Campus facilities, Academic performance, Faculty (include these and Admission as subsections of Education), History etc.
Final Score:	32	This is a suggestion in general, not just article wise: unless the topic is strictly sexual, do not involve too much sexual humour. You're way funnier when you don't.
Reviewer:	Have fun. --Tumb13weed (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This user never logged in here... – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 01:20, 22 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia