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
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.
I moved the original "Worcester" to its new address, and Worcester now points to a new disambiguation page, as we have a featured article on the sauce, plus a paragraph about Worcester, Massachusetts. Spıke16:28 28-Jun-16
Self-nom and For. Read the talk page. One Stradbrokian (?) created this page to blog about specific residents, the Parish Clerk arrived to scold us that it did not portray the community in a good light, and EStop and I set out to eliminate the former and to do the latter in spades, he (a native of the region) consulting Wikipedia and I doing aggressive copy-editing. A generic obscure and inaccessible English village turns into an irreverent but relevant spoof.
For. East Anglia's quieter towns and villages are sadly under-represented in such a global theater as Uncyclopedia. EStop⚓ 16:01, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
Against. Even after making some changes to most of the sections to make the pictures align better and getting rid of listyness and wacky religious cameos, I still don't think it is good enough to be featured. If any suicide article should be next in line to be featured, it should be HowTo:Commit Suicide, which has funnier methods, like fighting a grizzly with a banana. Irritable of contents (talk) 21:46, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
I don't object to it running on our main page, but respectfully suggest that what drew nominator in was the subject matter and not the treatment, given that the last half of the treatment is lists, HowTo, and quotecruft mostly consisting of repeatedly telling the same joke over again. Not one of our best. Spıke03:44 20-Jun-16
For. An article that takes you back to the idiocracy of Mitt Romney and being defeated by Barack Obama. A perfect one to feature alongside our prominent 2016 candidates as an example of the world's 2nd greatest idiot coming behind George Bush --CrappyUncyclopedian1111 (talk) 17:35, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. The article is a mish-mash of Untrue and Ramble. When it gets to anything based on real life (Romney's anti-abortion rhetoric and his Mormonism), it reads as though intended more to ridicule than amuse, as does this nomination. Spıke18:34 13-Jun-16
Nom & For. Please welcome new Uncyclopedian Kink15. Spıke01:14 26-May-16
For. kink15 am I allowed to vote for my own? Is that ok? Kink15 (talk) 02:59, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
For. Welcome Kink15, you are most certainly allowed to vote yes, an excellent article! EStop⚓ 06:27, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. Although the article does nail her flower loving hipster fans down better than any other singer's article I've seen, like Avril Lavigne's love of neckties I get they are crack heads the first time. Also, the other singers don't have a section for every album, and no doubt she will release a few more. Irritable of contents (talk) 20:24, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
For. (Formerly against) The images balance better, and any one actual quote isn't really better than any other. I'm just gonna try my minor changes before voting next time. Irritable of contents (talk) 17:15, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
Self-nom and For. We can avoid the recent controversy of featuring a page in the middle of a politician's campaign by featuring this send-up of Class Warfare beforeHillary Clinton picks Sen. Warren for Vice President. Spıke19:19 6-May-16
Against. It's very informative but still needs too many changes. It needs to be changed to was talked about as being a presidential candidate in 2016. I also think the end part with John Kerry get nixed as he and Madeleine Albright both found out they had Jewish grandparents at points in their careers where that information didn't really do anything like Warren did. Irritable of contents (talk) 18:52, May 30, 2016 (UTC)
Nom and For. Surprisingly, especially with his Ohio win, John Kasich is still in the 2016 presidential race. This article should be nominated because his campaign's best days will possibly be behind him at some point. Thares (talk) 23:38, March 17, 2016 (UTC)
For. There could be a brokered convention, but I think that's unlikely. This will take a while to reach 5 votes, anyway... --PlaceHolderUserNameMy talk! 19:52, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
Against. The outdated info graphic at the bottom of the page about sums it up. Irritable of contents (talk) 22:06, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
Author did exactly what I asked him to: read Kasich's actual biography on Wikipedia and try to pin this article to that. Unfortunately, the effect is to take various facts from Kasich's past (birthplace, religion, university) and take a series of cheap shots. Kasich is still in the race, despite the impossibility of winning it unless there is treachery in Cleveland, including using him to "unify" everyone who calls himself Republican through a candidate who appeals to everyone who doesn't. That is: His candidacy is a joke that remains untold, and a continuing story even though this article screeches to a halt at Super Tuesday. More work, please! Spıke16:27 18-Apr-16
SNF Someone else copied this over from the spoon/fork/knife/cutlery. Admittedly I rushed it a little before last Christmas when life became too busy so maybe it needs a little copy-editing here and there. --Nikau (talk) 03:15, March 6, 2016 (UTC)
For. Great article! EStop⚓ 10:50, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
For. Just as detailed as the Wikipedia article but with a better lyrics section. Irritable of contents (talk) 22:30, June 1, 2016 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
Comment. User:Abacab333 posting this may constitute plagiarism. Nikau (talk) 15:13, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
As explained on User talk:Romartus, I have removed any false implication of authorship. But you can't both claim its presence here violates your rights, and continue improving it and nominate it for feature! Spıke15:55 7-Mar-16
The whole rights issue associated with both sites is a massive mess. However we have the complication that if he posted it without permission on this site after copying from the other one and it is ultimately "not removable" based on the rules one agrees to while editing then there is a debatable rights violation if you want to get legalistic. This is probably covered by the Creative Commons SA License but it's fairly eye opening to the fact that nothing submitted to either site is ever yours again, as the Cow tipping fiasco proved. --Nikau (talk) 16:38, March 7, 2016 (UTC)
Oh and the contradiction was because I didn't consider the rights implications until today. --Nikau (talk) 16:52, March 7, 2016 (UTC)