Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism. Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism.
Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If your article doesn't make it to the front page, don't despair. It may be eligible to be Quasi-featured so long as it meets certain criteria.
THIS IS A VOTE, NOT A DISCUSSION.
If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE.
Violators of this policy will be
flushed down, down, down.
Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )
SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on Pee Review OR receive one critique via Pee Review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Against The whole thing is CAPS, how can I see? Vincent Pun 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Don't get me wrong but it being in all caps makes it harder to read, and thereby, takes away from its humour. But if the article isn't in all caps, it doesn't make sense and not funny at all. It is quite the paradox. --Dexter111344 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Nom+Dig I found this article hilarious before doing a minor touch-up and adding the right pic and caption. I found it even funnier with the shaking space shuttle, and after rereading, yes. Its hilarious and even funnier. Simultaneously. --THINKER 21:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nom and For. Pee Reviewed and reviewed again after a complete rewrite. I know that it's difficult to read, but that's the only way I found to make it work. --Mr.Vib 11:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For. I really like the tone and flow. The plot devices are terrific and I really dig the multilayered, multidimensional themes and story lines thought out the article. Greetings from a fellow Pathological liar.-- Vosnul 14:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The humour is unsubtle at best and all the crossing out is annoying. --Kelpan 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. I've read it three times now and...I like the idea, but the execution makes blood come out of my ears (which is a nice change, admittedly, but still). SirModusoperandiBoinc! 15:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Just created a reskin related to this article, located here. Add or improve to it if needed. --GeneralInsineratehymn 23:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Sorry, but half-assed hyperbole that reads too much like fact does not a VFH-worthy article make. Don't get me wrong, it's aight, but if there were more jest and less fact in there, it would be better.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 18:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. I second what Ljlego said. Also, it seems more like pure anger than comic anger in the writing. The pictures display that idea well, but the text seems somewhat sad. It's almost depressing.--Mr.Vib 19:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Smite-this-nomination-down-oh-mighty-lord-of-yore!" Oppose - Sorry, but my vote will have to be an ahem-no. It starts off really well, but by the end it becomes way too repetitive (IE, Booring fact paragraph, then waay too angry smiting paragraph etc etc). Maybe lumping all the anger together would make it more enjoyable, but whatever the case, it's too repetitive & factual right now. The images portray the feeling a bit better than the article ATM. Cheers, Spawn Man 07:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Against, everyone knows that Nagasaki is the funny one. This has potential that is, as yet, unused. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I de-Pope'd it, if that would change any votes (even though I thought the caption for the pope would suffice to have redeemed it for its cliche-ness... apparently I was wrong). --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 18:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Abs. - I know what its doing, I like what its doing, but I don't think its being done to the proper extent. There are elements that need alteration. I dig it though, so I won't vote against it. --THINKER 18:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
For: As someone who liked the original game, the sportsdesk picture really sells it, and the article itself delivers it. I, for one, welcome our Norse overlords. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Against I like the concept, but there are changes that need to be made. With such a random connection (video games Vikings turned newscasters), a better segue is needed. I'd help, as Kalir suggested, but I don't know anything about the game. Sorry bro. --THINKER 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind, I've yet to get an article to featured status, so if you could provide good advice, you can get a hippie when you bring the article back down to earth. Also, I'll be thankful. And everyone loves a happy Kalir. ЖKalirhippies! yay! 05:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Steve Johnsenson against wave (and its numerous references to feces) leads me to believe that little constructive input will be offered. --THINKER 05:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have concluded that the conclusion needs to be more effectively concluded, otherwise voters will conclude that an Against vote is needed to conclude this VFH section. So, yeah, I beefed up the end. ЖKalirhippies! yay! 19:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My issue is more with the leap from being vikings, to being vikings at the super bowl, to being viking behind a newscasters desk. The intro is like 4 sentences; for people who don't know whats up, well... they wont know whats up now will they? --THINKER 20:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I do that sometimes... If you want, you can take a crack at fixing it. It is a wiki after all. ЖKalirhippies! yay! 22:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd help, as Kalir suggested, but I don't know anything about the game. Sorry bro. I'm not equipped for such a task. --THINKER 01:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Marginal Against. I like the idea because I could see some schmuck here doing this. This is a type of article that has needed to be on here for a while, ESPECIALLY with the heavy mix of American and British users. However, I didn't think the humor (since it's American) was consistent. The references to the Queen/Paris Hilton comparison and the dentist picture were funny, but the terms references became old after a few paragraphs. I also wish there had been more jokes along the lines of the "old people slipping in piss" one.--Mr.Vib 19:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Nominating and for. Nice rewrite by Nakedman. Notice that this article is not random at all: it's perfectly coherent with its title and draws its humor for what it doesn't deliver. Ignoring the band is a very ironic comment on its real relevance. -- herrdoktorneedsAV2[scream!] 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak against: Great idea, but could be expanded. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 02:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. I was going to vote Against. Then I read the talk page & thought the talk page was more funny than the article. Then I read the article again. Maybe I'll vote For if it gets another appropriate picture or something to grab the reader a bit better.--Sir Shandon 10:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Against per Mr. Vib --THINKER 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I fleshed out the text and dropped the "this reporter" bit. I didn't wanna, but I am bowing to peer pressure for the greater good of Uncyclopedia. Jeez, the things I do for this website... SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
For I've seen the article before, and trust me, this is a vast improvement. I think it should get a full protect after (if) is gets to the front page though. ЖKalirhippies! yay! 15:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Very for, especially with the choice of chemical formula. --Imber 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong For. This is an amazing improvement over the original article. Finally, one that doesn't say anime fans are [insert insult here]. That in itself deserves a feature, if even just to keep it that way. I really do like the chemistry, though, very original! -- TheSlyFox 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Nice work chaps. His Grace, the Duke 11:37, May 24 2007 (BST)
every time this article has come back from being nuked it has sucked. this is an exception, in fact, it is very good, so for --» >UF|TLK|▋» 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Very For: Funny, irreverent, goes in a direction you don't expect it to, and isn't either "omg anime r00lz u all" or "omg anime sux0rz u suk". The sort of thing you could confuse with a "real" article for a few minutes. Excellent indeed. --CaptainSpamMUNPUTPBAA 00:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 5
Excrement-I tasted bile in the back of my throat --Steve Johnsenson 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Well, what the hell did you expect? I merely laid the corpse out on the slab, it was Cap'n Ben who attached the electrodes and sent it lumbering towards the Village People. --El Zoof 05:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For It should be featured without a doubt. Kip the Dip 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, this is brilliant. For. --Emmzee 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig very good stuff --THINKER 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to nominate it myself around Valentine's Day, but if y'all think it's ready now, okay. Kip the Dip 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Would be perfect for Valentine's Day. But that's a while off.The Oblong Lobster 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I had originally intended it to be released before Valentine's Day in the hope that it got picked up as front-page material for that day... but then I got stuck and ran away and hid from the article. Thanks once again to Cap'n Ben for rescuing it. --El Zoof 21:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak for. It's hilarious, I laughed out loud at "Ug no able record CSI: Miami," but it's a little too short... but funny enough to compensate. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is strangely assembled from four parts, however, when you press refresh theres a new fortune! its the only good part of the old article. cept maybe "how to be hysterical." LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. Unsuccessfully straddles the line between quasi-historical and somethingelse. It might work better to pick one and run with it. Run! SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna think on my vote for a while. I've been pretty ruthless tonight thus far, and the turn around in this article from its stint on VFD (which can't have been much more than a week ago) is enormous, but sadly it still fails to hit that secret spot for me. The funny spot, not the other one...pervert!~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.008:30, 13 May 2007
Not this version of it no. Extensive work has been done to it since it was on VFD. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:32, 14 May 2007
Aw is it like that? Didn't do too bad, and the comparison is pretty steep.. The cookie is cool? Who can say... But, Leatherbound hasn't answered my call for Ups or downs, so whatev... :) --THINKER 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I've voted for plenty of good quality articles. Just the recent batch don't quite hit the mark for me. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:17, 13 May 2007
Well, considering I put it up for VFD because it was under the wrong name and was a completely different and terrible article, think of them as seperate entities. (Do it for the random fortune fortune cookie, if only the random fortune fortune cookie) LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 13:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
for in school today, some idiots use the day after tomorrow as a reference for their presentation on global warming. what the fuck? the experience makes this all too funny in the saddest of ways. LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)