Self-nom and for. As per this forum, it seems self-noms without a Pee Review are now accepted. It's a great improvement. I hope you like the article! :) Mattsnow 22:12, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
For. Yes. Also, if you do require a pee review anytime the admins decide to bully you about it, holler over to me. I'll take care of it. Sir Oliphaunte (განხილვა) 04:14, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
I like the article enough, but what's up with the fist image? Is there a reason it's what it is and not a normal image? -- monika 06:16, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your input Monika, I am always open to constructive criticism. I had a serious pic of King at first. It was a hard choice to make between a totally serious pic to kick off the article, but I liked the pic that's in the article so much that I could not resist putting it first. I realize that the "encyclopedic" tone will suffer from it, I was just hoping it would make people laugh. Thanks! Mattsnow 06:26, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
For I have a slight problem with the opening sentences, as they sound like one of those articles that's whole concept is going to be, this article details all the characteristics of the person opposite to what they actually are. Luckily the rest of the article is excellent. mAttlobster. (hello) 12:50, November 23, 2011 (UTC)
Against: 0
No against votes
Comments
Abstain. The facetious fawning approach seems to be overused these days but I wouldn't change anything. The peeps like it.-- 18:05, November 21, 2011 (UTC)
Featured. ChiefjusticePS3 08:00, November 25, 2011 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 25 November 2011. 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.
Mattsnow 22:12, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
For. 
