Mensa (history, logs)

Article: Mensa

Score: 9.5 simply brilliant individuals

Nominated by: Spıke Ѧ 23:35 6-Nov-12 23:35, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
For: 9.5
  1. Symbol for vote Self-nom and For. They shouldn't mind. Much. Spıke Ѧ 23:35 6-Nov-12
  2. For. General of All Branches of the Military and the Head of the State Police Eric (talk) 23:38, November 6, 2012 (UTC)
  3. For. An article for s-m-r-t people. Prätt Körp (talk) 08:35, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
  4. For. Snippy 10:07, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Symbol for vote For. Humorous and grand in its layout and depiction but greatly disappointing in length. However, I have been amused and the article has done surprisingly well. POP!GoesTheWeasel Evil-clown 16:20, November 9, 2012 (UTC)
  6. For. very well written ShabiDOO 19:20, November 10, 2012 (UTC)
  7. For. LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:01, November 11, 2012 (UTC)
  8. Symbol for vote For. As a member of CFM (Central Florida Mensa) myself, I can verify this article's legitimacy. HGA (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories) Icons-flag-nazi221:30 11 November 2012
  9. For. I was the founder of the defunct La Salle-Peru (Illinois) Mensa and I think this article is hilarious. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)
  10. For. Snowflake mini Mattsnow 13:08, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
Against: 0

No against votes


More at User talk:Reallybloodymental#Mensa

  • Symbol neutral vote Abstain. It's an entertaining read, but I consider it mostly lightly amusing. It's a fair mockery also. Trouble is, the article just isn't BRAINY and sophisticated enough. Get what I'm saying? Man you're dumb. :P --Reallybloodymental (talk) 19:40, November 8, 2012 (UTC)
    I think that "In the style of the thing it's about"—that is, deliberate obtuseness or overcomplication—would make for a much worse read. Spıke Ѧ 20:00 8-Nov-12
    It's funny, but there isn't stuff in it that directly stands out. I tend to make idea traps, like viewing things from a skewed angle. That's my style. You article is too pleasant and generally fun for me. I'll read over it again and see if I change my mind, but for now it's just purely entertaining without anything really attention grabbing. Maybe I'm wrong. I did skip 1 or two paragraphs. By the way: Now I like that definition. Actually maybe you could write a few bits that are showing up dumb people or something. I might make a few suggestions later. You can add them if you choose. I'll just sort of put them in a little box. But this is just one person so it's not like I'm teh most important suggestor ever (wrong word and stuff). Good article, maybe I should have abstained but instead I might change my vote later.
    Your word is more precise, but surely this entire vote is "in the style of" the abstruse Mensan. Spıke Ѧ 11:43 9-Nov-12


← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Click to feature this article
Always check the feature queue first.
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.