Reviewed and FOR I did review this article, and I believe it is worth of featured. What does length have to do with it?! WarmRegards, Javascap 7th of May
For It's a little short, but I think it could lose some of its punch if it were greatly lengthened. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Sweet and Succinct The best reads usually are the shortest. Also, it was a surprisingly sympathetic portrayal. Mightydandylion (talk) Fk 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
For. Yeah, it could do with a little more polish, maybe, but it's funny, and I liked it. --SirU.U.Esq.VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee09:50, May 9
More spit, more polish Great concept, lots of funny stuff, but it's just not quite there yet. Lengthen it, tighten it up, bring it back. --Hyperbole 01:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Further spit, slather of polish Yeah... yeah it was alright but a bit too short. It was just kinda lololololol vetrenz --SirDJ~Irreverent 12:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Featured. •Spang•☃•talk• 20:44, 30 May 2008 This article has passed VFH and was featured on 31 May 2008. 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.