*'''For''' Tihs is a vrye godo atrecli. It mtsu be ftareued imemditaely. --{{User:Insineratehymn/sig}} 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
*'''For''' Tihs is a vrye godo atrecli. It mtsu be ftareued imemditaely. --{{User:Insineratehymn/sig}} 01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
−
==[[Clara Bow]]==
+
−
{{S|+3 dead "IT" girls}}
−
*'''Nom & For''': This is the best article that I wrote, and it's very funny.--[[User:Metropolis|Metropolis]] 19:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' {{User:Prettiestpretty/sig}} 01:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Very weak against''': almost. Seems a bit too choppy with rather short sections. Clean it up a bit, and you'll definitely have my vote. --{{User:Electrified mocha chinchilla/sig}} 05:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Against'''. The beginning is pretty solid, it's the middle to end part that needs fleshing out.--{{User:Modusoperandi/sig}} 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''For''' Prettiestpretty likes it. {{User:Ayatollah Gurkhmeini/sig}} 04:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
−
*'''Weak for''' The beginning is very promising, but the ending needs some serious work {{unsigned|Cap'n Ben}}
−
::[http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Uncyclopedia:VFH&diff=1654501&oldid=1654495 diff] {{User:Braydie/sig2}} <small>19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)</small>
−
*'''For''' --{{User:PrincessCaitlai/sig}} 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Vote for an article you find excellent. Please add new nominations on the top.
Initial nominations do not count as a vote For. Please use "Nomination and For" or some iteration thereof if you wish to vote for your nomination.
When voting For or Against, please change the score number accordingly—this saves a lot of time later.
IP votes carry half the weight of registered votes.
Nonsigned votes and votes without timestamps will be struck out, so make sure you sign your votes with ~~~~ or press the "your signature with timestamp" button () above the edit box.
When nominating an article, the template Template:VFH should be added to the end of the article using {{VFH}}. Anything you add {{VFH}} to also shows up in Category:Feature nomination.
Failed VFH nominations should only be archived/removed by the sysops who pay attention to this sort of thing.
Previous featured articles can be found on the archive pages.
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.
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 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).
VANITY REGULATION: Articles that meet the criteria for vanity may not be nominated.
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Nom + for Got the right mixture of twisted facts, stupid jokes and dark humour. Fairly short article, but got me laughing several times. {{RabbiTechno 18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}}
For. An unexpected twist on a story that made me cry a little as a kid (but in a manly, masculine way). --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For. I was thinking about how this'd go up for VFH soonish just yesterday. --ContestantCUN--VFHNotMBuzzCtrbs 01:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong for. Interestingly, the Charlotte's Web article has got a decent (but separate) gag. For the moment, the two will merely reference each other despite the seeming contradictions. — Lenoxus 02:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For Got Honourable Mention at PLS, with the problems of featuring, a feature box could be made. —Braydie 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For, I could definitly move the text around to make it look like how featured articles do on the Main Page. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak For because it's short, but it has a grood idea. --ЖWHEEEEE! 04:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For But you have to work the little feature box at the bottom into the one big image somehow when this gets featured. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 06:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. It hurts a bit to do this, as it's nice to see Zb painting pictures of a thousand words, but it's not a standout article for me. The text fails to rise above the gimmick. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the concept, but against the execution. it doesn't really get to the point, and isn't as long or as funny as it ought to be - jack mort |cunt| talk - 11:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I must vote for my own articles, per regulations.--<<>> 01:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) ...hey, this isn't mine!
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. I can pass as Brad —Braydie 01:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Against, because I must vote against UnNews articles, per my beliefs. --ANIDNMENOSCWICZ 02:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, yeah. This vote violates the "Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded." rule. FU ANIDN —Braydie 02:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For, because I too must vote for my own articles, per regulations. unfortunately, I didn't write this, but it's still a for --ContestantCUN--VFHNotMBuzzCtrbs 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For Funny, and the pic in the article is one I uploaded. --Composure1 03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For. Anything that publicises the plight of those poor astronauts is a good thing. How have I not heard anything about this before? Something must be done. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 21:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Against This article describes a true event. It does not hold up to the basic principles of uncyclopedia. 144.211.95.12 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
NOME AND FOR A great unrecognized article. Great humor, great pictures, The Article has it all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byBenny Goodman (talk • contribs)
Strong for. Tight, cute, and a good sense of humour. If it wasn't an article, you might want to date it. (P.S.: It's one of my forgotten children. So, back home by 10 or else). --SirToddGUNWotMMIUotMNotMMDAVFHAotMBur.AlBur.CMNSPC(talk) 06:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For more articles that are the right kind of self reference. Like this. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For I'm with Modusoperandi. A self referential article that's actually funny? I'll vote for that! --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 02:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Against Given that the tax office is such an easy target for satire, I'd expect much better than this uninspired rant. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 06:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. While, as someone who pays a bunch of income tax, I feel your pain, I'm siding with Cap'n Ben on this one. There are some funny bits, but a rant about the IRS is too easy.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Against. Prior to reading this, I had never considered that the IRS would have detractors, but I guess there's no pleasing some people. Wait, they take your money? Oh. That's got to be illegal. — Lenoxus 07:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For Yes, I wrote it, andm as for it being "too easy," that just means that you wish you'd thought to write it. (What a "criterion" to vote against something.) 172.194.123.187 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Weebils
Against. Ditto Modusoperandi. -- Rei 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom and for. Got a mention on PLS, I'm fairly pleased with it. It also got 81 at pee review but that hardly counts since it was me who scored it - jack mort |cunt| talk - 00:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom & For: I was a bit hesitant at first to nominate this, but I think it's an extremely historically accurate piece about Hitler. The randomness is gone (except for the melons part), and apart from being a bit lengthy, it's an excellent article in my book. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 08:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Against: as much as I think this is a good article, I think that such a topic ought to be done better. Hitler is a very prominent historical figure and the potential for humor is far greater than this article achieves.
For - Looks good, agrees with HTBFANJS, and hasn't been featured before, although it has had over 1,500 edits since February '05. --LThomas 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Against Still too long, though tons of progress have been made. Trim out the unfunny loose ends. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 16:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Agasint Long, partly boring. This guy was hilarious in this real life, he should not be portrait that boring here. 144.211.95.12 15:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and for. It's time again for the yearly ritual of Ford vs. Holden... right next to my home. Damn! -- Colonel Schwertfechter (2005-2006) 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For. High-tech cars and beer. The techness of the beer is immaterial.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 08:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-Nom and for. The best thing I've taken off VFH in a while. This article definitely deserves another chance.--<<>> 18:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Against. this was only removed from vfh two goddamn days ago, my vote hasn't changed in that time - jack mort |cunt| talk - 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The article has, however, if only slightly.--<<>> 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow....and I was just about to vote for this....FORE! -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 19:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if the little boy had a bit of quiet time before being rush back for judgement here, he might be able to examine why he didn't make it last time against. Dame GUNPotYWotM2xPotM17xVFHVFPPooPMS•YAP• 22:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Originally Nomed and Strong For -- Awesome article but you could have waited a bit longer to put in back on VFH, why did you take it off in the first place instead of vote for it? --Uncle J 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Around Christmas, we had maybe a half-dozen articles that were removed, renommed, and then featured. I don't know why everyone's making such a huge deal about it right now. I didn't vote for the first time, because there was crap in it before. Now that crap is gone.--<<>> 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For It made my eyes well up.. in a very manly way. --Kenvalyi 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For Wow, it's here once again. Anyway, before voting Against please note that some crap has been taken out of this article since last time...-- 10:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For, again --GAMESPOT=666 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
For Hes crying like a bitch Weasel3689 18:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I Just checkd this page again and IT IS STILL NOT FEATURED! Look at the above timestamp and my below one!! I voted for the previousl featured version and the current nomination. FEATURE IT!!!! Weasel3689 18:30, 03 March 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, Against. The title is brilliant but the text, even with the changes, isn't keeping up.--SirModusoperandiBoinc! 06:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Am changing of vote to For. Story is filled me with joy. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Nom, and a vote for. Really well written news article that is funny without having to mention kittens or grues etc.--Benny Goodman 17:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I tried to buy a Wii. After failing to locate one at any local store, I was reduced to wandering the streets yelling "Wii!". Send bail money. Fast. Bubba's got this look in his eye. --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 19:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against It's funny, but a lot more could be done with it besides the "breaking pots" angle. Throw in some chicken abuse, lawn defacement, etc. and I'll gladly remove my Against. —rc(t) 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong For- I can't believe no one has thought of this already lol --Uncle J 20:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
That was unintentional... I hadn't read that article. Though it is interesting that I happened to write it within a close vicinity of time after. I never intend to plagiarize, I'm not a Carlos Mencia. I attempt avoid that at all costs, and I actually did a bit of searching on here for any UnNews related to Link/Zelda to make sure it wasn't too similar to anything. I happened to miss the fact that the RPG article, which has conceptual similarities, could have any resemblance. - AhhDiddums 21:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Basicly the same as RC's comment, Do more then just breaking pots and I'll vote for it. Other then that very good.User:Iceman187 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Could someone make an informative notice or box for those of us not "in the know" regarding (if I properly recall the name) Zaldo the Elf? Kinda like the "Overly British/American" tags. I would do it but I don't really think I'm even knowledgable enough to know what to say — maybe some feature of the Hynian universe is begging to be incorporated into such a sign.— Lenoxus 05:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For I thought I voted for this already. --ЖWHEEEEE! 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
For. Made me chuckle. --Emmzee 13:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Nom and For Fantastic, honorable mention at PLS. —Braydie 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
He's my friend when things get rough. THIS was my childhood people, thankfully it has had no lasting vegetable marrows. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 17:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Just like an acid trip, but without the flash backs. Iddy Bitty 21:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is based on and don't really want to know. All I can say is For. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 23:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for freakin' out man! Aah! Bugs on my skin, bugs on my skin! --SirModusoperandiBoinc! 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For ....hey is that a flute over there? - jack mort |cunt| talk - 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
PHOUR CUZ I ER SEW JAKKD UP RIET NIOW. I loved this show. Not really, but this article is nice. --love, gustavtalk at menope 22:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Mae West would've contracted and died of AIDS had she lived past 1980. Sorry I didn't light your fire mhaille. --AmericanBastard 01:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
For, although I am disappointed to see so many red links in a Procopius article. SirCs1987UOTM.t.c 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Against - I don't see, why this article has to live from altered photos. I urge any real Mao-fan, who wants to see actual Mao pics to vote against this article. 144.211.95.12 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nom and For. This may struggle to get featured, due to its Britishness, but I really want to give it a go. In a nutshell, David Cameron is our leader of the opposition and has been often criticised for focusing on style over substance, most notably with his video blog: WebCameron. --15Mickey20(talk to Mickey) 22:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. I have no idea what it's talking about, but I liked it. --Hotadmin4u69[TALK] 23:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For. The Britishness isn't a problem at all. It seems like the same political bullshit thrown around in any democracy. Pretty good.--Procopius 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Against Ya I get what he is trying to say and I understand the struggle of labor vs. conservative in England but its too political and not enough funnyness (my patented word) Weasel3689 18:00 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For Britishness (or Britishocity) is no problem here, it's a very good satire on politicians trying to be hip in general. Very good article. --§.|WotM|PLS|T|C|A 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. It's good. --Zarbag 10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is my first time voting Tory. I feel dirty. For. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Not that I'm a thatcherite or anything... not that I'm saying you can't *think* I'm a thatcherite, you can if you want - it's ok by me --OliproAnchorKUN (Harass) 12:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For I don't vote much, so this deserved it, prepare for launch.... (yes it's back, albeit in a shorter form) ...3...2...1...
For I was laughing by the end of the first paragraph. It may be focused on a UK politician, but it's also a satire on a variety of political types. Phantom Grammar 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
For. Don't know who he is, don't need to know. Beautiful concept. --So So 13:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Against, sorry, I didn't find it that funny. He doesn't come off as sufficiently out of touch. How about using outdated youth terms like 'bodacious' or 'mad for it'?--Nydas 14:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I want to agree and at the same time I think that's been done to death. I just don't know... -- Lenoxus 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For This is the kind of warmth the government needs, you know? To connect, really connect with the people. -- Lenoxus 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
For Clever satire, marvelously not saying anything across the whole article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added byThe Rover (talk • contribs) diff
For Private eye level satire Retrofuture42 15:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)