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
left behind while the world was ending.
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.
Nom and for. I rewrote this a while ago and put it on Pee Review, more out of hope than expectation. I thought I'd give it a whirl here in the absence of any criticism from pee review. --ChiefjusticePS2 11:47, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
Nom and for. I rewrote this after finding it on VFD. I'm fairly happy with the result and brief straw poll on IRC suggested it wasn't too bad. Votes, comments and suggestions welcome! --ChiefjusticeXBox360 10:52, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 14:16, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
Against.Tour de France was a feature. This one is close but not yet. Too many jokes seem to me to be telling the reader about a funny thing that really did happen in his life rather than making original jokes or humour about him. Keep going with it! SirScottPat (converse) VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 09:35, April 18, 2014 (UTC)
Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:04, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
For Votes: 3.5
Nom and for Funny! Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:04, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
For. Haven't read the article yet but the concept's awesome and there has obviously been put a lot of work into it! And if Anton says the page is funny, I believe him. I'd also love to know how this is going to look on the Main Page if featured. My imagination's running riot! Or maybe not. Also, one thing I don't like, that has also been highlighted in the article's talk page, are the anime-ish drawings representing the article images but that's just my personal style, I know most people like those. Mimo&Maxus (Talk) 17:25, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
For. Why doesn't this have more votes?? Chiefjustice3DS 11:23, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
The two main comedy concepts I think I can see here are writing an article in the style of what it is written about and parodying a typical Uncyclopedia article with the usual "porn" "Russian" "Oscar Wilde" memes. I'm afraid that I find that neither of them works that well in this article. I would actually consider re-writing it. Perhaps instead going for a theme like, "Drawing breath" or some other unexpected meaning of the word "Drawing" that catches the reader off guard. SirScottPat (converse) VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 07:56, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
It's a nice idea, but surely this 'type' of article would be better suited to one based on handwriting? As a result, weak content aside, I think it's a bit confused and lacks visual cohesion. Thumbs up for the effort though! SIR MAC BOSWELL [†] 08:14, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:08, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
For Votes: 7.5
Nom and for A great article. And a funny one. It can make you laugh. You are not laughing now. You will laugh later, when you'll be reading the article. Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 13:08, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
Self-nom and For An article based on parodying the source. Afterall what was the hidden meaning that furniture contained? Was there, amongst those soft, fluffy pillows the mind of a psychopath at work? SirScottPat (converse) VFHUnSNotMWotMWotY 15:06, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
For.Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 16:33, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. The weakest of three UnNewses that author wrote that day, its only comedy strategy is a contrived misreading of the word "mean." It doesn't read like news, for which its only defense is that the BBC source article didn't either. Spıke¬ 13:45 18-Apr-14
For. Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 10:27, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. I enjoyed this article, and especially that it was not what I was expecting, in the same way as Question Authority. But not on the main page. Supporters may be discounting the tendency of visitors from the central US never to return if this were their first glimpse of Uncyclopedia. Am happy for Mhaille to get Hall-of-Shame credit anyway. Spıke¬ 14:10 18-Apr-14
For.Anton(talk) Uncyclopedia United 19:34, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Needs some heavy editing to get my vote. Too much focussed on the 'plot', which is then followed by a massive list of unfunny piffle. Needs refocussing to include references to the screenplay, production design, casting, post-production etc. There's LOADS of room for comedy. SIR MAC BOSWELL [†] 12:23, April 11, 2014 (UTC)