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
crushed by Tetrominoes.
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.
Against. On the site since 2006. In addition to all the usual forms of listcruft, this one has a list of Did you know? templates, as well as a list of parenthesized voice-over wisecracks in the Intro. Spıke19:13 31-May-17
Against. Swell! an article about Jewland. And Arse-tusk. No, seriously, what is it about? Spıke04:06 30-May-17
Against. It has some good bits, but they are tarnished by injokes, poor formatting and the use of pointless large numbers. It has a little bit of something good going on there, but it requires clean up. You should clean it up. —Oblique☃ 04:21, May 30, 2017 (UTC)
For. One of Sycamore's many great articles.--HolUp (talk) 21:11, May 24, 2017 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
The article neither makes a clear point (except that some visionaries are Canucks and some are Wops and pricks), not even on what the Global Village is claimed to be; nor amused me, as I was on my guard to discern what point it was trying to sell. Spıke21:24 24-May-17
For. A detailed, hilarious distribute of the final Star Wars prequel. A collaborative effort between me, Irritable of contents, and some other guys whose name I've forgotten.--HolUp (talk) 12:28, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
Shameless Self nom & For A hilarious and superior description of a criminally overrated film. SIR MAC BOSWELL ☢ 12:17, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
For. Never saw the movie but I love the soundtrack (don't kill me).--HolUp (talk) 12:22, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
Against Votes: 2
Well put together, but needs some pruning. Pete.b.lane (talk) 18:05, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
Not well put together. Intro has aimless parade of memes. Being killed in a collision with a garbage truck is typical and yet the high point. Cast and Discography are listcruft. Is there a comedy strategy? Aha, Tony pisses himself. Spıke00:24 19-May-17
For. Found this old article and gave it a few minor tweeks. The original article is straight crazy, yet it has some clever things to say about space travel and mythology. WeatherUnderground (talk) 17:16, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
For. Loved it! I found the diagram of the spacecraft particularly informative. Chunkles☎ talk✏️ contribs 00:25, May 15, 2017 (UTC)
Page (which presents Voyeur I) and this nomination were moved to avoid having the real page name be a pun for the reader to guess. Spıke18:34 21-Apr-17
Though it's a decent article, it feels a little half-baked to me. I think more about the space craft itself, how it looks and operates could open the flood gates to comedy goodness. SIR MAC BOSWELL ☢22:08, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Wrote some more and added a silly image. Feel free to write more, but I think it's long enough now. --WeatherUnderground (talk) 13:16, April 23, 2017 (UTC)
For Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster pitching Superman to their editor (Max Gaines maybe?). It won't take more than a New York minute to read thru and you won't regret it. Irritable of contents (talk) 17:16, April 2, 2017 (UTC)
For. A five star unreview that exemplifies how to over analyze. I'm sure there's more lenses of literary criticism to view Zero Wing from, so perhaps it's a bit premature. Irritable of contents (talk) 03:17, March 16, 2017 (UTC)