SN+4 - I wrote this and had it pee reviewed it received a 42.5/50 so I went in and fixed the prose and formatting problems, and now it is ready for VFH in my opinion. --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
zbviasvsdyb - that's the post-modern Art way of saying "FOR" -- Prof. OliproKUN(W)AnchorOpBur. (Harass) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
For Yep, it's true Sonic is a good writer, but that's not news? MrNFork you! 13:42, Jul 28
For. I don't know about art, but I know what I hate. And I don't hate this. </Mr Burns>. --UU - natter14:27, Jul 28
Weakish for. I like the first picture and its caption the most. •••Necropaxx(T){~} 00:08, Aug 6
F♥r. Very nice article, I like it. Good job, Sonic. sirsysrq@ 17:36 Aug 6
For.It's so TRUE,i like it.--LOLsupreme 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Against: 4
Nah See Conceptual Art and Jackson Pollock, both are good examples of this idea - sure it was well written but it didn't really make me laugh. --SirDJ~Irreverent 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
What the DJ said. And the humor wasn't much more than what I'd expect from an article with this title. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 02:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Against. Ridiculously-simple-money-making-scheme type jokes have been done over again, both on and off Uncyclopedia, to the point where they are now too generic to be featured. TheMothAssassin 17:18, August 3 2008
sorry its a funny concept, but i wouldnt call it bad nor feature worthy.theres not alotta meat in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byNezlr (talk • contribs)
Wait, is meat a bad thing? --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 04:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I resent that comment MrN, I am not just a one note song! --Mgr.SirSonic80☭ 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Not quite Great concept, but no jokes made me laugh. I smiled a couple of times, so you don't get the typical against I give for not tickling my funnybone.--<<>> 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Meh Per DJ and Brad. -RAHB 23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Abstain - Well, the key to writing these articles is to not have a too much of an agenda, an 'axe to grind' as it were - but it was too evident in the tone of the article. There were some laugh-out-loud moments, offset by the bias of the author against the idea, and I actually thought that the first painting looked quite skilful compared to some art (that really does look like nothing!) I've seen. --Knucmo2 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Featured. RAHB 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 18 August 2008. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.