Self-nom and For. This was a requested article what I done. I kept it fairly straight - hair, scientology, gayness - then got a decent pee review and made some tinkerings. His wiki page is semi-protected so it's important he has an Uncyclopedia page open to juvenile abuse. Leverage (talk) 22:47, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
For. Nicely done. mAttlobster. (hello) 22:10, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
Four. A full work, nicely done. John would be proud for his dead retarded child to read this. I didn't read all the gay jokes, too many for my taste, and my thetan wanders. Good work! Aleister 12:34 10Decem12
Very for. Helarious and well written. --ShabiDOO 14:58, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
Against: 0
No against votes
Comments
It would better fit both the encyclopedia style and the main page if the gay joke were shorter, more indirect, and not partly in the first person. Spıke¬ 09:21 1-Dec-12
Comment. Thanks for being constructive. With regards to the first person aspect, do you mean where the impartiality slips and where it becomes a bit more bloggy in style? e.g. "In 2006, paparazzi - who are frankly the scum of the earth and should find something better to do - photographed John innocently kissing Jeff Kathrein." Leverage (talk) 22:26, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
Over all this is good, helarious at times and it has a great concept. Two things: the beginning of the article is very clever, by talking about his homosexuality without directly mentioning it, not only brings out big laughs, it also lets you refer to different facets of his life, without focusing so much on his gayness: acting, life, criticism, directing, religion etc... However, towards the end, you mention the homosexuality directly kind of whacking the reader over the head (IMHO) and I find it less funny and a little dissapointing, sort of like putting ketchup ontop of a wonderfully made marinara sauce. Secondly, there are a few points in the article where I can't figure out what exactly things you mention have to do with the rest of the article, here are a few examples: Buddist faggot? Stephen Hawking's decline? democrat party? scum of the earth? white slavery? Thirdly: It would be great if you expanded, even a little, the scientology section. I don't really understand the final paragraph that well. --ShabiDOO 17:15, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
Comment. Thanks Shabi. I will have a look at subtling up the homo stuff, and expand the scientology stuff if I can. Re the stuff you didn't getL 1) Faggot - scientologists have been accused of using smear campaigns against gays - some conspiracy theories claim this is why Cruise, Travolta, etc got sucked in. 2) Hawking is included just for a silly pun on the title of Look Who's Talking. 3) Democrat party speech was just to highlight Quentin's tediousness. 4) Scum of the earth is because it's written from a Travolta Fan's point of view. 5) White slavery - most interesting of all! This is a real quote, in fact all of the accusations are copied and pasted verbatim. Leverage (talk) 14:32, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
Featured. RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:37, December 17, 2012 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 17 December 2012. 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.
Self-nom and For. This was a requested article what I done. I kept it fairly straight - hair, scientology, gayness - then got a decent pee review and made some tinkerings. His wiki page is semi-protected so it's important he has an Uncyclopedia page open to juvenile abuse. 
RomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 07:37, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
