Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism. Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism.
Articles from all namespaces (including UnNews, HowTo, UnBooks, etc.) are eligible for VFH. Votes against articles based on namespace prejudice will be discarded.
If your article doesn't make it to the front page, don't despair. It may be eligible to be Quasi-featured so long as it meets certain criteria.
THIS IS A VOTE, NOT A DISCUSSION.
If you feel the need to whine or start flamewars please do it HERE.
Violators of this policy will be
Current Nominations (new stuff at top, prefix votes with * )
SELF-NOMINATION REGULATION: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) must spend at least one week on Pee Review OR receive one critique via Pee Review before nomination. Articles nominated by people other than the author can still be nominated at any time and require no review (though it is still recommended).
VFH IS NOT A DISCUSSION PAGE. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
O.nu[brm } Urp, following a positive pee review and some fixing-up after said review. In case you have trouble comprehending this article, I included a handy link at the bottom in case you don't feel like Googling. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Against. It should appeal to the nerd in me, but...it's more of a gimmick than a page. SirModusoperandiBoinc! 05:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Against...although my vote could be changed. Here's what happened: I looked at the article. It hurt my eyes and I went away in glazy-eyed incomprehension. Then I came back to view the link and discovered what the deal was. Somehow it needs to be made more obvious what the article is about....maybe a line at the top, something like "So, I bought myself this shiny new keyboard! Hmm. Something's different. Let me plug it in..."?--Sir Shandon 10:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Nominating and for. Nice rewrite by Nakedman. Notice that this article is not random at all: it's perfectly coherent with its title and draws its humor for what it doesn't deliver. Ignoring the band is a very ironic comment on its real relevance. -- herrdoktorneedsAbrain[scream!] 19:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. I was going to vote Against. Then I read the talk page & thought the talk page was more funny than the article. Then I read the article again. Maybe I'll vote For if it gets another appropriate picture or something to grab the reader a bit better.--Sir Shandon 10:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Against per Mr. Vib --THINKER 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I fleshed out the text and dropped the "this reporter" bit. I didn't wanna, but I am bowing to peer pressure for the greater good of Uncyclopedia. Jeez, the things I do for this website...back in my day it was "this reporter this" and "this reporter that". Kids these days! SirModusoperandiBoinc! 02:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Change of Heart. I took a second read and imagined the cowboy narrating. Needless to say, it made the difference. --Mr.Vib 00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For, though it's been bugging me that a lot of really good articles have been too short lately, like this very short article. If the trend continues I may start voting "against" stuff on the grounds of being too short. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 03:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Gotta check the audio later. --So So 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
For...yeah, it's different. And funny.--Sir Shandon 10:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Against Votes: 0
No against votes
This is an ad parody that was made with recording in mind; I figured that the joke would wear thin with a 7 minute recording, ya know? And while I do agree that some small articles could use expansion to heighten their funny, I think that some shorties-but-goodies are warranted (like this one; if only because I entertain myself...and the opposite is a hard pill to swallow). :) --THINKER 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom for re-feature: I know that this article has already been featured, but that was way back in 2005 when the voting system was not very established. A few weeks ago I looked at some old articles of mine and found that, though good in 2005, some were mostly cruft now, and would not survive VFD if they were not "featured" articles. I decided to refurbish Phonics and try to bring it to 2007 quality. Hopefully this is only the first in many refurbishing efforts of my 2005 featured articles. See the difference for yourself. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 16:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
For A completely new article! This one is worth featuring; the old one would have almost made VFD. Rogpyvbc 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig I didn't see it when it was first featured, and its damn funny now. --THINKER 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist It's good that you're sprucing up your old stuff, and I hope others follow your lead. But I don't think re-featuring an article is a good precedent to set. --Cap'n Sir BenGUNWotMVFHVFP 00:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Delist For ruining what was already a perfectly good article the first time around! SirENeGMA(talk)GUNWotMPLS 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Unconvinced True, this article is leaps, bounds, and phonics better than the old version, but still, I don't know if this is exactly right. Should we really go to this sort of highlighting method? Doesn't seem fair, when the honor hath already been bestowedeth.-SirLjlego, GUNVFHFIYCWotMSGWHotMPWotMAotMEGAEDMANotM+ (Talk) 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Conditional for per consensus that refeaturing is OK. This article certainly deserves it, both for being outstanding and for being so different than it used to be. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 23:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I meant pending consensus... that is, if we reach a consensus. I'm proposing a consensus on this, and if we say yes then my vote is For. Sorry. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Clarification I would be more than willing to "un-feature" the old Phonics and apply the feature to only this version, if that changes anything. I just think that as the standard is raised, old featured articles should be held to that standard. --» Sir SavethemoosesGrandCommandingOfficer ... holla atcha boy» 01:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a good point. The originally featured article is appalling. If many of the other 2005 features are this bad then perhaps the featured status of all of them should be reviewed.--Kelpan 15:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong For. This is an amazing improvement over the original article. Finally, one that doesn't say anime fans are [insert insult here]. That in itself deserves a feature, if even just to keep it that way. I really do like the chemistry, though, very original! -- TheSlyFox 00:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For. Nice work chaps. His Grace, the Duke 11:37, May 24 2007 (BST)
For. Well, what the hell did you expect? I merely laid the corpse out on the slab, it was Cap'n Ben who attached the electrodes and sent it lumbering towards the Village People. --El Zoof 05:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For It should be featured without a doubt. Kip the Dip 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, this is brilliant. For. --Emmzee 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Dig very good stuff --THINKER 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
For I hate all that manga-crap or whatever that cartoon girl thing is. But it is so well written and entertaining, and that has to be the point. The Oblong Lobster
--L 10:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, shut up, kids. Mostly because the anime fanfic thing with bizarre combinations devoid of plot and such severely needs to be brought down a peg. On a related note, have you read my new fanfic, Hot Dragon-God on Para-Elemental Secks? ЖCake-eating Cave Monkeyor was it a giant monster or a robot? 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Support. I originally saw this back on WP, as a diff on the Jimbo Wales page. Kinda scary to think that this was over there... even if it was reverted in about three tenths of a second... User:Wehpudicabok/sig 23:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is strangely assembled from four parts, however, when you press refresh theres a new fortune! its the only good part of the old article. cept maybe "how to be hysterical." LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna think on my vote for a while. I've been pretty ruthless tonight thus far, and the turn around in this article from its stint on VFD (which can't have been much more than a week ago) is enormous, but sadly it still fails to hit that secret spot for me. The funny spot, not the other one...pervert!~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.008:30, 13 May 2007
Not this version of it no. Extensive work has been done to it since it was on VFD. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.012:32, 14 May 2007
Aw is it like that? Didn't do too bad, and the comparison is pretty steep.. The cookie is cool? Who can say... But, Leatherbound hasn't answered my call for Ups or downs, so whatev... :) --THINKER 09:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Not at all. I've voted for plenty of good quality articles. Just the recent batch don't quite hit the mark for me. ~ Dame Ceridwyn ~ talkDUNVoNSEarc2.011:17, 13 May 2007
Well, considering I put it up for VFD because it was under the wrong name and was a completely different and terrible article, think of them as seperate entities. (Do it for the random fortune fortune cookie, if only the random fortune fortune cookie) LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 13:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
for in school today, some idiots use the day after tomorrow as a reference for their presentation on global warming. what the fuck? the experience makes this all too funny in the saddest of ways. LeatherboundbooksTalkContributions 02:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
And yet I still have no idea what it's like when doves cry.--<<>> 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
For, because it's a good article, and also because I give voting preference to UnNews. Mostly the first one, though. --TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)