Against. Just didn't laugh Funnybony 14:59, Aug 22 Just because I feel same as Shabidoo is not a reason to vote against. So I'll abstain.--Funnybony 12:41, Aug 25
Comment. The article has a great ironic tone but I found it pretty confusing. I wanted to laugh but I couldn't grab onto anything that would feed me a LOL moment. Sorry ShabiDOO 19:44, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
This is one of my pet peeves (I keep it in an aquarium and feed it garden toads) - that articles here should be lol. As I was misinformed, this is a satire site, and satire does not have to be funny, just satirical. Good political and historical satire is a mix of funny and ironic and other things. Just my peeve being let out of its aquarium for a walk in the woods. TFK still sucks, but has a satire bone that's getting better as it ages. Aleister 15:49 8-20-12
Ali...this would be all fine if the article wasn't trying to be funny...however...this article was trying to be funny...and for me...the article didn't acomplish what it was trying to do. If it was purely satire, ironic or sarcastic but not funny nor trying to be funny, I might vote for it. I would love to see more true biting satire outside of unnews. Ontop of that, there are other reasons why I wouldn't vote for it, but I found the "confusing" and "not funny" as very legitimate reasons to not vote for an article, and shared these two examples as constructive criticism, as all uncyclopedians should. --ShabiDOO 00:50, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Comment. I like this article, but it doesn't have a proper ending, or at least not to me. Otherwise I'd vote for.--Snippy 12:30, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
Featured. Target feature RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 00:13, September 9, 2012 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 9 September 2012. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.