Short article, so short review (though as in-depth as possible, given the subject material). Humour - Oh look, Cajek's gay. Except, I don't know whether he is or isn't, I'm just going to take his name in vain because everyone does (I'll not mark it down for that - I've done the same). Now, gay jokes *can* be funny, if used in the right circumstances - but they need to be subtle and self deprecating - and I dn't think this one is. Well, I suppose it depends on your definition of subtle.
First two lines - so far, so good (ahem). However, I still haven't worked out what the third and fourth lines are saying - you'll have to enlighten me. And then the rest of it just feels like the author has had to find words that rhyme without too much thought going into the content.
I think my comments above summarise the concept as well, to be honest. I don't quite see how it can be described as humour - which is actually worse, because bad poetry well written can be incredibly funny! I would direct the reader to read some of William McGonagall (either his real stuff, or the rip-off versions that they have in Private Eye, or the Eye's obituary writer, E J Thribb.
Prose and formatting:
This possibly should be higher, since there's so little to go wrong. However, in the context of this article a higher score would skew the average up, and the last thing I want to do is give the idea that it has redeeming value. The spelling and grammar is pretty poor though - lots of rogue capital letters, converesed (conversed?) are two examples. And the language tenses are really random - should it be "is gay" or "was gay" - since Cajek is (I believe) still alive, to describe him in the past tense seems a bit, well, premature.
As a poem, I don't think it works. Poetry should be a thing of beauty - it should read well out loud, so even if it's going to be deliberately bad it should be able to raise a titter. I tried reading this out loud, and couldn't - it's incomprehensible, and it doesn't scan either.
Rough average of the preceeding scores.
Realistically, this should not have been nominated for highlight - in fact, as someone said in it's VFH entry, it ought to have been VFD. If the author intends to keep/improve on this work, I'd suggest it should be moved to userspace so that it can be worked up. I'm not sure there's ever likely to be any merit in it however. Sorry if this is a harsh review, but with something so short it's hard to find positives - I hope that some of the pointers are useful in developing this or future works.