Talk:Booger King

		This article was nominated for deletion on November 18, 2009. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Rewrite

I rewrote this for Uncyclopedia:Conservation Week. At one point, it looked like this. I spent the last 5 days making it a better article. This is currently on Pee Review, and I'd like to see how it's going so far. If you want to make a constructive edit, go head, but this page is on my watchlist to revert bad edits.--Sir Manforman 12:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

I started this for Conservation Week and so far, it seems like it's going in a good direction. Though I'm not done as of 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC), I'll probably be done or close to it by the time this is reviewed. Any feedback to make the article better would be appreciated--Sir Manforman 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How do MFM, I've just popped through and Proofread the article, and had a couple of suggestions. At the moment, you're zeroing in on the booger thing quite a lot. It's beyond repetition and into overkill territory. Try discussing some of the other poisonous substances referred to. You mentioned worms as fries, fine, but why not try other bodily products, such as earwax (in place of mustard, mmm, tangy!), or snot (in place of thousand island dressing - who'd notice?) There's plenty of scope for expansion, if you want to run with it. You can discuss the lawsuits filed in more detail, perhaps, or how about mentioning that it didn't have the impact hoped for initially, as most customers agreed that the food tasted better than normal burgers (McD's or BK), forcing R McD to add further harmful substances?

I'm not going to actually review it, just thought I'd share a few thoughts. Oh, as well as sorting the spelling, I did tweak a few lines, hopefully to make them read a bit better, hope you don't mind (if you do, flick a booger at my talk page or something). --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw you proofread it, as it is on my watchlist. At first, it was going to be entirley focused on the resturant, but than it would be a stub, so I added the History section. I think I did notice the Booger King section was a bit of repition, and now that you mentioned it, I might add stuff to it that you suggested. I chose the "worms" for fries because there shapes resemble each other. Thank you for your opinions. --Sir Manforman 14:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	6	I laughed at parts of it, but the rest just sounded too serious.
Concept:	6	The overall concept seems good, but I think the article needs more details about the restaurant. Additionally, the section about Booger King's menu seems a bit short.
Prose and formatting:	7	It looks like the formatting is fine, although that table doesn't look very good and it needs more links.
Images:	6	The two images that are there aren't enough for the article. Images of things like the inside of the restaurant, the food, or its employees would greatly improve the article.
Miscellaneous:	7	It's definitely better than it was before you rewrote it. The use of footnotes is something I don't see that often in articles.
Final Score:	32	It's not FA-quality material yet, but, with a little work, this just might survive VFH.
Reviewer:	Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN • Capt.) 17:21, September 9, 2007

Proofread

The Proofreading Service has proofreaded your article. Like it? Need more proofreading? Click here!

I just read through it today. Minor grammatical things. Looks like there were some changes since the last proofreed.DerHindemith 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Proofreading Service has proofreaded your article. Like it? Need more proofreading? Click here!

Had a look through a while back as noted in the Pee Review. Just nipped through today tidying up the spelling again. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm not very good in spelling--Sir Manforman 23:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review 2

Humour:	8	That was fun! You could go on and on about the differences.
Concept:	9	Good idea for an article, manforman.
Prose and formatting:	10
Images:	6	I think you could easily come up with better images. I didn't really get that hamburger one, and the sign was... kinda lame, I guess.
Miscellaneous:	10	I liked the table.
Final Score:	43	I don't know if this is VFH. I bet someone will come along and say that it should be longer. Maybe add a section about the court case? Talk back to me, tell me if I helped.
Reviewer:	Le Cejak • <-> 22:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That picture of the burgers was added by the original author when I was in the process of rewriting it. On second thought, the pic is pointless and I removed it--Sir Manforman 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review 3

Thanks for the past reviews, I'd just like another opinion did, how is it? Could it make VFH? It needs more pictures, see my UN:PIC request and help if you can, thanks!!--Sir Manforman 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	7	Has a solid concept and some good stuff. My biggest suggestion would be to trim out some of the stuff that doesn't add to the humor. Just read through the article and remove all the stuff that isn't a joke or something amusing. Some stuff, like the paragraph on the difference between the bathrooms and some of the extensive "history" section, doesn't really add much humor to the article, it just tastes a bit like filler.
Concept:	9	This concept has TONS of potential. But perhaps a rethink is in order. I personally didn't find much amusement in the whole plot about attempting to run Burger King out of business. Let the ridiculousness of a restaurant that serves boogers and worms speak for itself. There's loads of fast food humor you could tap in on: "Customers are normally served a Booger, that is, one average sized booger placed between two hamburger buns, though some obese ones order Double Boogers, which contain two whole boogers, or Booger Juniors, which contain a booger that is cut in half." Also, the dead worms idea has a lot of potential as well--how about parodying the ongoing battle about inhumane treatment of chickens by the fast food business? A section about people defending a worm's right to live a happy, comfortable life before being slaughtered for the fast food industry would be pretty funny. Maybe something about vegetarians forming a society for prevention of worm abuse.
Prose and formatting:	8	Two or three typos, but nothing that a proofread wouldn't fix.
Images:	8	Both of the pictures you already have look great, but a third one of something aside from the signs would be nifty.
Miscellaneous:	6	The biggest problem with this article is that you devote one tiny little chart to the menu of the restaurant, and spend almost the entire rest of the article talking about Ronald McDonald's scheme to put Burger King out of business. My cheif advice would be to expand the section about the menu, perhaps with the "worm cruelty" thing I suggested, and to trim down the "history" section a bit.
Final Score:	38	Has a lot of potential, but the section that should be longest is currently the shortest one. Keep at it!
Reviewer:	--THE 22:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review 4

I did some work, and how is it?? When could it survive VFH?--Sir Manforman 15:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	7	At first I thought it was just really gross, but then I relized it was spoofing the health of fast-food(My guess). The random chunks about Ronald Mcdonald creating the resturaunts was pretty useless and not very funny. Besides, what would you expect from an article called "Booger King"? Fans of toilet humo(u)r might love this one. *Vomit*
Concept:	8	I'd just expect randomness from an article titled Booger King, but you did very well with the toilet humo(u)r.
Prose and formatting:	3	You need to expand it a little more, maybe a part about the "Healthy Menu", or dare answer the question to what horrible secrets the "Childrens Menu" might hold. What would be waiting for you at the "Drive-Thru"?
Images:	0	None?
Miscellaneous:	10	Not a whole lot else I need to mention.
Final Score:	28	This is alright, grossed me out majorly, but still made me chuckle afterwards. Just expand it a little.
Reviewer:	--Narf, the Wonder Puppy/I support Global Warming and I'm 100% proud of it! 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an image. I don't see how it is "toilet humor", it doesn't mention bathrooms anywhere. Anyways, thanks for your thoughts and I'll re-sumbit sometime soon--Sir Manforman 21:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if you were joking or not, but toilet humor is anything which involves disgusting things such as vomit, feces, boogers, or other icky stuff. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:35 Oct 03, 2007

Oh, I get it. I guess I was being literate--Sir Manforman 23:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Gah! Indent properly! Also, pie. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:38 Oct 03, 2007