Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Ghetto White Boy Syndrome
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ghetto White Boy Syndrome[edit source]
Well, I have finished this article. I did what the previous review told me to do, as well as toning down some of the more racist parts as DrStrange suggested, and I do believe that it is finished now. A pee review would be greatly appreciated, and if you wish to dispute the racism or lack-thereof, please don't use this page again. 
Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell • Latest literary excretion) __ 19:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- You did a real good job of keeping the article true to your original idea while removing those "unfortunate associations". I certainly appreciate the effort.-- 12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- When I said "un-funny", I meant it. Now I am saying "funny", and I mean that, too. IronLung 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I went back and reread the whole thing and noticed there were some paragraphs (2 in particular) that stuck out as racist to me, so I removed them completely and replaced them with much less racist paragraphs.
Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell • Latest literary excretion) __ 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. I went back and reread the whole thing and noticed there were some paragraphs (2 in particular) that stuck out as racist to me, so I removed them completely and replaced them with much less racist paragraphs.
| Humour: | 7 | I enjoyed it, but I think it could be improved. I couldn't find any major problems with the humor aspect and I don't think you crossed the line at all. |
| Concept: | 6 | I find the entire "White guy posing as a black guy" concept to be a bit stale. In short: It's been done. |
| Prose and formatting: | 9 | A couple of small errors let you down here. Overall very good though, reads very much like a real encyclopedia article. (Is possi supposed to be the plural of posse?) |
| Images: | 10 | The images were great. Good sizing, good placement, just the right amount. Good job. |
| Miscellaneous: | 9 | Averaged. I gave you a bonus point here because despite the shortcomings, the article works very well. |
| Final Score: | 41 | A solid article. Definitely more room for improvement but I think you did the best you could with an overused idea. |
| Reviewer: | --Coutzy 14:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC) | |