This lists the 30 most recently featured articles. For all featured articles, see Uncyclopedia:Best of or Category:Featured. Purge to view the latest additions to this list.
Welcome to the Uncyclopedia Votes for Highlight page. To nominate an article, type the name into the box below and follow the directions.
Vote for an article you find excellent.
Previous featured articles can be found in the VFH archive.
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, UnTunes, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If a nomination disappears from this page, it is likely to be found in either the recently featured or recently failed nomination lists.
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.
Any and all violators of policy will be
ASPLODE'd.
Nominate
Self-nomination regulation: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) no longer require a pee review. Pee Review is still highly recommended for newer users. Do not clog up VFH with poor quality self-nominated articles... or else.
VFH is not a discussion page. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Self-nom and for. I decided to rewrite this article a couple of days ago after deciding that what was there before was only marginally preferable to a blank page. I'm fairly pleased with the finished product but any comments or criticisms are welcome. --ChiefjusticeXBox 06:23, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
For. I liked the article in general, but the bit about the viagra thing was hilariously placed. (but maybe that's because I'm 15) The Shield of Azunai DSA510 06:26, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very good. I liked the bit about there being so many adverts. It is an extremely good article. Someone will have to explain to me what soccer is, though, must be some American game. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 08:58, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
We have it, but it is much more likely to be "while." Any sportscaster who used "whilst" would be lampooned on sports talk radio the next morning. Spıke¬ 12:37 15-Jun-13
When approved, would we want to embargo this (as we did with Auld Lang Syne) until the start of the NFL season (weekend of 8-Sep-13) or at least the start of the pre-season (weekend of 11-Aug-13)? Spıke¬ 12:54 15-Jun-13
Comment. Don't know who nominated it and don't know who wrote it but I guess it would be a nice article if more work would be done. Meanwhile, hoping that the nominator (who forgot to put {{For|Nom and For}}) will keep on working, I will vote for to encourage him. The work which should be done is a proofreading one, certainly, then several jokes can also be improved or removed. The nominator, whoever he is can contact me on my talk page. Anton (talk) 18:41, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
For. All tenses to be made past, if the worst comes to the worst Leverage (talk) 18:31, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
For. Eh, I guess so, but I had to remove some YT links, so take this vote with a grain of salt. -- The Shield of Azunai DSA510 18:33, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
For. A requested article. At the time I did not realise that the title of the article refered to a film and so instead wrote about the literal meaning of the title. For clarification I redirected Bonnie Prince Charlie to the article as no one had written an article on him. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 07:40, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
For. Good work, images add to the article, and format is interesting The Shield of Azunai DSA510 16:19, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
For. It could be better, but I like it anyway. Sir Sinnerblah blah 11:48, June 14, 2013 (UTC)
For. Could do with polishing in places, but made me smile. ChiefjusticePS3 08:38, June 16, 2013 (UTC)
Nom & For. Found this one when researching for history and geography. Touched it up a little, so it is appropriate for the nomination, however anyone can change it even more. Anton (talk) 19:46, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
For. After finally getting to reading this, I say that its a good page on the Berlin Wall. So, for. --The Shield of Azunai DSA510 17:59, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
For. spectacular article ShabiDOO 03:24, June 12, 2013 (UTC)
For. Funnybony 11:16, Jun 17 11:16, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Comments
A lot of the article is very good, but I can't vote for at the moment due to that appalling section on Baby P. Remove that whole section please. Sir Reverend P. Pennyfeather (fancy a chat?) CUNVFH 20:29, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
I agree however will vote trusting that someone will remove it as it is a great article. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 16:24, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Done. Do you think that the changes I made are good? I did not like the first picture very much (as it is not original) and replaced it with the another one. Anton (talk) 15:48, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Do you want more history? Anton (talk) 16:25, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Adding more to it would improve the quality but make sure it is quality. The intro on its own would get this article featured. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 16:28, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I think there is not enough history to look like something from Wikipedia. Anton (talk) 16:34, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Could you, please, take a look at the paragraph which I would like to add to the article and say if it is 'quality' or not? Anton (talk) 17:02, June 5, 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I will have to say no. Very sorry but it is too close to the truth and does not make me laugh, I can see where intended jokes are but they aren't funny enough. Best if we leave it out. Sorry. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 06:00, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
Afraid I did not really understand what you meant. My paragraph is not at all close to the truth, on the contrary I made it seem as if Stalin was completely innocent. The only true thing I actually say is that the Berlin wall was built. Anton (talk) 12:56, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
What I mean is there are too many true facts and not jokes made out of the facts. Also Stalin being innocent doen't come across well for me. To subtle. What you should say is Berlin was divided into four sectors: USA (despite the fact they scraped in at the end of the war), the UK because they needed somewhere to go on holiday, Belgium because statistics showed they contributed more to the war than France and the Ukraine which was taken over quickly by Russia so the USSR held that sector. Horrible wording I know but you get the point. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 08:53, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
Afraid I changed my paragraph. Do you think it's better now? Anton (talk) 13:16, June 6, 2013 (UTC)
I know comments section can extend somewhat but this discussion should have been attached to the talk page. Please note. --RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 20:23, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Self-nom and For. Anon was aboard one recent night adding to this article's former theme, turbans made of used toilet paper, and the right fix seemed to be to rewrite it from the ground up. Spıke¬ 22:48 24-May-13
For. My favorite jokes were about 'minarets' and Denmark. Anton (talk) 20:24, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
I think it needs more content to it (one or two more paragraphs) and then I might vote for it. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 06:21, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
Nom and For Ukraine is a great country even though it is sometimes considered to be a second Russia. The article on it was created by ScottPat and I, but it would not have survived (or at least we think so) without Spike's great help and a brilliant spell-(and grammar-)checking by Reverend P. Pennyfeather! Anton (talk) 19:31, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
For. I faintly remember contributing one or two things to this. Good article perhaps one of my greatest and probably one of Anton's greatest as well. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 19:34, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
For. Here in the Falklands we dislike Ukrainians, except for their women, and their pets. But even so, this is a very good article, and shows that not all Ukrainians are bad (their women, and their pets). Aleister 18:33 4-6-'13
For. Loved the bit about the money sucking Gecko.--Uncycloperson (talk) 21:01, June 10, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Comments
Comment. I think that work on this article is not finished yet. What I can suggest right now is to modify the first section "Determining..." a bit. Your logic there is not very clear. Anton (talk) 18:05, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
Reply: You seem to refer to the article as mine. I simply nominated it, it is not my work. Please work on it if you wish. Thanks. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 19:23, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
When I have a little less work to do, I can concentrate on it. Anton (talk) 07:45, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
I read this one before, and it's a fine feature. In high school I used to carry an Emu feather in my wallet. Aleister 12:24 16-5-'13
For. I said everything I wanted about this article in my review. It is simply great! However, I don't want to be annoying but, as I have already told you, Scott, there is one problem with the Churchill quote and you said you agreed with it... Anton (talk) 09:50, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very, very silly, yet still remains somewhat historically accurate. Awesome stuff --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:01, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
For. Those silly Australians. --Snippy 10:47, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
In the talk page of the Wikipedia article, there is the original military template that might be perfect for this :D --TheDarthMoogle (talk) 08:01, May 21, 2013 (UTC)
Comment. the humour to content ratio seems a little low to me and it is pretty wordy in place imho. ShabiDOO 06:00, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Self-nom and For. To my spork of the Wikipedia article on the breakfast cereal, ScottPat prepended a twisted biography of Admiral Nelson oriented around Ships that Go Crunch in the Night; the article's history is now on its talk page. Spıke¬ 11:56 11-May-13
For. Very well done, both of you Captains of Funnery. And I could tell that Spike wrote some of it because.....he voted for it (we need votes on VFH's, for example, have you read my moon page?). Aleister 20:09 11-5-'13
But I got token bans during my "nom-and-abstain" phase. Nor can you tell from that; NTSB was a non-self-nom, and I have two more queued up once the authors are done. Spıke¬ 00:15 12-May-13
The thrill of the jump awaits your six-legged lame man. Jump, lame man, jump! If I had a piece of your country's money for every time I kicked a lame man in the ankle and ran away I'd own one of your banks. Aleister 19:11 3-5-'13
For. I very much liked the beginning and a bit less the middle because I liked the serious way in which you described nonsense (a parody on the stupid guides, encyclopedias, etc.). But, at the end, it became boring (nonsense sometimes does). You have only one humor point which is the "serious nonsense" (although this term doesn't exist). A good article, although I feel that it should be improved.Anton (talk) 13:40, May 6, 2013 (UTC)
I think I was not in a good mood when writing this. Your article can be improved but it is not as bad as I have said. On the contrary, after Scott's and Spike's comments I had received on my talk page (about not voting for an article which I don't consider very good) I have been thinking for a long time and finally decided that it certainly deserves being featured. Anton (talk) 19:38, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
For. I've read this one long before it hit vfh, and I liked it then. And, this is also pretty good. A bit strange, but so am I. The Slayer of Zaramoth DungeonSiegeAddict510 18:20, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
For. Okay I admit to being drunk when I wrote the against comment and I admit to being a heretic back since Aleister paid me so kindly and voted for something I hold dear, I'll just slip this anonymous vote in here. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 20:34, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
#AgainstI'm sorry Al but I didn't find this particularly humourus, only quite random. The concept seems too random to be encyclopedic and I struggle to find jokes that amuse me. I did like how you had to find three people and maime them to get the six legged man but the making them jump bit I don't find very funny. I therefore don't think it is ready or good enough to be featured. Add in some more jokes and maybe a bit more content. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH and Bar (talk) 14:11 18, June 2013</s>
For. Although this article doesn't really look like other guides that you may see on Uncyclopedia, it is still one of the best HowTos I have ever read. Even at a closer look, when writing a Pee Review of the page, I couldn't find any important negative points. Very well done! Anton (talk) 18:48, May 13, 2013 (UTC)
With a little polishing and a couple of good additions this will be a fine feature. Or featurette, depending on the mood of the day. Aleister 12:56 29-4-'13
(Formerly Against.) <s>I would vote for this once polished. Am voting against now on procedure: Author files it here, asserting that it is one of the website's best, and also on Pee Review, to find out if it is. Do not use VFH merely to get people to look at your work.</s> 11:49 28-Apr-13 I still don't like the use of the first and second person (nor the entire HowTo: namespace). Spıke¬ 22:20 29-Apr-13
Comment. It has some pretty funny moments. Mind if I add a few tweaks? ShabiDOO 18:31, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
Comment. There are many missed opportunities here imho. i did laugh a couple times, I found most of the jokes are cliches that fall flat. instead of randomly narrating the antics of each country...the article could have an over all concept or clear purpose. if it must be a random article about psychopathic nations, then I think the atticle would benifit by sticking a few nations and taking the character of each country to higher level of comedic absurdity. At the very least I would argue that at least some of the ideas should last more than a paragraph. ShabiDOO 07:18, April 26, 2013 (UTC)
My take is similar. Section 1, on how each of the major nations cynically uses the EU to advance national goals, I regard as mostly true and about as funny as the 15 minutes of negotiations between moves in the game of Diplomacy. It's told jauntily, but some serious anti-federalists also tell things jauntily. Geopolitics and a joint stance vis-a-vis America are similar serious points. I don't claim that the author is advocating anything in particular, but it reads like advocacy. Spıke¬ 21:59 29-Apr-13
Replying to both comments above. The idea of the article was to tell the truth about the EU in an over-exaggerated way (as I do in many other articles). I will admit that there are many cliches in here and that it seems to be written from the point of view of a UKIP member. However I think these cliches are still very funny and many other articles have major cliches such as the William Lane Craig article which seems near to being featured so cliches seem to be appreciated on this site. The main point of the article is less to mock the organisation of the EU but more to mock the patriotic, nationalistic, imperial views that European countries are stereotypically said to have, especially the relationship between France and Britain. I also admit there is a niche humour range and that if you are not into Geo-political humour or Radio 4 style British comedy you probably would not find this too funny. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 10:27, May 19, 2013 (UTC)
Comment. I agree that this has a few too many missed oppertunities. However, not enough to sway me to either side. The Slayer of Zaramoth DungeonSiegeAddict510 18:22, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
For. I've liked this one for years. Years! As I've said before, Occupy Octipi. Aleister 1:04 25-4-'13
For.. Great. Quite encyclopedic-looking. Looks serious until you read it. Sir ScottPatCUNVFHUnSNotM(talk) 06:18, May 9, 2013 (UTC)
For. The title indicates a subject obscure enough to make my cute lil' aspie brain vote yes. (And good formating, as well as image quality) The Slayer of Zaramoth DungeonSiegeAddict510 18:24, June 3, 2013 (UTC)
For. Because it made me afraid of Blue-Ringed Octopuses. 142.227.138.30 14:54, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Against. Although funny, this article tells the reader everything about the blue-ringed octopuses and does not teach him how to fear them (which the title suggests), so it is not a real HowTo. Also, by a strange coincidence its content is very similar to the article on the Blue-ringed octopus, also created by Funnybony. Anton (talk) 17:23, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very good page. Should be named "Screaming Lord Sutch" though, his real name (see wikipedia). He may love this page, and hope Sutchy gets a chance to read it. Aleister 00:36 12-4-'13
For. Definitely for. Good article and good humor. Anton (talk) 11:06, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Aleister it was originally called Screaming Lord Sutch however SPIKE asked me to move it as no one, he said, would type that in. Click on the discussion bit for the article to understand more. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 06:50, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
That's easy to fix. Just have a redirect on the name "Lord Sutch". Redirect is painless, it brings on many recent changes. Aleister 8:36 12-4-'13
By the way Sutch is actually really dead. The new leader of the OMRLP is Laughing Lord Hope or someone I think. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 11:26, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
Peppered with nominator's signature advocacy. Tell me what is funny about "The then prime minister Magaret Thatcher was coming up with ridiculously silly and stupid policies, which were hindering progression." Spıke¬ 10:42 14-Apr-13
That's funny because Margaret Thatcher is a primeminister who made a huge change for our country and brought us out of a state still distraught and shocked at losing an empire into a boom and ending the Cold War with Ronald Reagen and Gorbachev. She did a lot for the country and brought on change whether it was good or bad so I'm making a joke at saying the Conservative party isn't a serious party but a silly one which does not bring progress when really this would be used to describe the OMRLP. Thanks you. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 12:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
Please note that this article was written before Thatcher's death and in no way is meant to insult her. Sir ScottPatUnSCUNVFH (talk) 12:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:29, June 18, 2013 (UTC)
For. Very good. I liked the bit about there being so many adverts. It is an extremely good article. Someone will have to explain to me what soccer is, though, must be some American game. 
CUN VFH UnS NotM(talk) 07:40, June 11, 2013 (UTC)
Abstain. from me. --
AgainstI'm sorry Al but I didn't find this particularly humourus, only quite random. The concept seems too random to be encyclopedic and I struggle to find jokes that amuse me. I did like how you had to find three people and maime them to get the six legged man but the making them jump bit I don't find very funny. I therefore don't think it is ready or good enough to be featured. Add in some more jokes and maybe a bit more content. 
22:10, Apr 22 22:10, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
