N♥m && w♥v. Another very nice article from our new friend Tagstit. —SirSysRq (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
For. I hate this article, but I am voting in lieu of the hypothetical thousands of people who will never get to chance to read this article, but if they would have, would have enjoyed it. TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
For haha nice tfk--Tagstit 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
For. Awestastic! Aaadddaaammm 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
For! To use a metaphor: Some articles flirt with genius; this flirted, saved her from the dragon, made love after the wedding and is now raising a child in the suburbs. ~Orian57~~Talk~00:42 2 February 2009
For. i like cardboard boxes 142.150.72.166 16:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Meh I get where it's going, but I think that's my major problem with it. Most of the article is told out in the intro, and even the intro is a little redundant. A good shot at a hard topic to write for, but I think it needs more for a feature. -RAHB 09:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Against Because it sucks balllllllllllllllllloons.
Against I originally gave it a good review because I assumed more jokes would be added. The concept of "cardboard box in the military" can only go so far without any supporting jokes. I also edited it prior to having my ass-reamed by Mnbvcxz who schooled me on prose, which reminded me that I should try, somewhat, to use my BA in Journalism to some degree. You use "has many/multiple uses" like 3 or 4 times in the first paragraph, and "different mode settings, variations" appears several times in the article. Having it appear more than once is not a joke in itself (at least not a good one). Also, since you took this off of pee review.
original:"In "Down mode," it acts as a sort of cloaking device. By putting something under it, it covers the object and gives the impression nothing is there! The only limit is that it has to be smaller than the box. Experts have even tested putting humans under the box to give the impression they are not there! It's lightness allows the user to move by just lifting up slightly when under the box, and using their legs to walk forward. The military has already considered using this for sneaking in and listening to enemy meetings, battlefield cover, and even assassinations!
"cloaking device" and "gives the impression nothing is there!" is redundant, and not in a funny way. Also, you use "gives...there" twice, which also serves no purpose and nearly ruins what potentially is a good joke. The article needs to be more concise with its jokes in order to be a VHF. This is how it should look.
revised: In "down" mode, acts as sort of it can be used as a cloaking device by simply putting something underneath it (combined first two sentences = shorter, clearer and more concise). It can even cloak humans and, due to its lightness, allows one to move by just lifting up slightly when under the box, then using their legs to walk forward (combined next two sentences.). The military considered using this for sneaking in and listening to enemy meetings, battlefield cover and even assassinations! (exclamation points usually take away from the sentence and makes it feel like a sales pitch. FYI, sales pitches usually aren't funny either.
In conclusion, there needs to be at least 4 or 5 more funny jokes in the article to both give it a decent humor content and to fill up the space left over by verbiage. The concept is funny but it becomes flaccid as you try to stretch a couple of jokes into an entire article. The jokes you have are funny, which is important to note, but you need more of them in order for it to be a decent feature in my view. I know everyone hates criticism, and in turn, the critic himself, but I enjoy hatred, as it fuels my lust for global domination. projectjulio 18:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Against. Agrees wth RAHB and projectulio. kit 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Against. A difficult subject to write a funny article on. Sradec 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain Funny, but I could see alot of causal readers going "meh" over this. --Mnbvcxz 00:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not about what the casual reader thinks. It's about what's good. End of story. -RAHB 09:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Who, then, determines what is good? --Mnbvcxz 17:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The voters determine what is good. If you think it's good, you vote for it. If you think it's good but you think other people might not think it's good, you still vote for it, because it is your opinion that it is good, and that's what your vote should represent. Other people get to make their own decisions, you don't need to abstain just for their benefit. -RAHB 23:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RAHB wins. —SirSysRq (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
In my defense, I have a weird sense of humor. --Mnbvcxz 04:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we get rid of the massive pee review in the middle of the nomination for VFH?--Tagstit 03:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we get rid of the "Could we get rid of the massive pee review in the middle of the nomination for VFH?" comment?98.122.164.74 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should better now start writing an article on oil barrels for the sake of competition, don't you think? -- Just a cardboard box 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Featured. MrNFork you! 00:27, Feb 23 This article has passed VFH and was featured on 23 February 2009. 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.
Fork you! 00:27, Feb 23
