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.
Any and all violators of policy will be
Self-nomination regulation: self-nominated articles (i.e. you write an article and then decide to nominate it yourself) no longer require a pee review. Pee Review is still highly recommended for newer users. Do not clog up VFH with poor quality self-nominated articles... or else.
VFH is not a discussion page. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
Keeping up with the Jones' This page reeks of history and seasonings. Some people called Cleo a Goddess, others called her as asphole. But Romartus knew who she was, and tells us about it. Aleister 19:26 1-12-13
Self-Nom and For An article I have been working on for a while now about an "important" event in the build up to World War 1. I came across the subject as a featured article on wikipedia and found its name amusing enough to write an Uncyclopedia article on it. SirScottPat (talk) VFHUnSNotM 13:59, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
Nom and For An article re-worked by User:EpicWinner, to show a very odd and original way of looking at Racism by spinning an extremist right-wing bias on it. Very funny. SirScottPat (talk) VFHUnSNotM 12:09, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
For. Well done! However, it's hard to adapt to the writer's tone, when he switches it from en- to un- cyclopedic and backwards. Anton (talk) 17:47, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
Tentative for. I assume you'll heed Anton's advice and either choose one tone of writing...or give a better reason to switch back and forth. --ShabiDOO 03:16, December 6, 2013 (UTC)
Against Votes: 1
Against. This is epic good writing and I welcome it to the encyclopedia. (The extremist spin is not its only humor; it also makes real points about the silliness that happens when various people "play the race card.") But an alternate point-of-view is a hard sell, and even with the template (which would not appear on the main page if featured), an alternate-POV article on racism, where we put a bit of the Intro on the main page and ask the passing reader to understand that "it's not us talking but Conservapedia," is problematic. Spıke¬ 12:18 23-Nov-13
Hmmm...good point. But surely it should receive some recognition for the writing. SirScottPat (talk) VFHUnSNotM 12:26, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
I edited the banner on the top of the page to be a bit more appropriate. For this article, I wasn't really parodying Conservapedia, but rather YouTube commenters who seem to dominate most political videos. You know who I'm talking about, the ones who say how the sheeple need to wake up and vote for Ron Paul, how the Holocaust was a "Holohoax", how the liberal Jews control the media through Honey Boo Boo and Kim Kardashian, how the anti-white genocide is constantly being ignored, how Zimmerman can't be a racist because he's Hispanic, how Michelle Obama is an "ape woman", how it's okay to use the n-word but not the word "cracka", how black people have a genetic disorder that causes them to commit the most crimes, how Alex Jones is a Zionist disinfo agent, how David Duke is a sane and rational human being, how homosexuality is "of the Devil", how E.T. Williams, Pastor Manning, and Alan Keyes are the only sane black men, etc.--EpicWinner (talk) 03:25, November 25, 2013 (UTC)
Of course. And Shibidoo makes good points too (I usually polish pages once they are on VFH, knowing that other eyes are reading the thing usually gives me a new perspective, and I read it out loud and check the cadence that way as new things pop into me brain). Aleister 13:23 22//11//13
I utterly hate voting against creative writing...but this is a topic dear to my heart and it rather needs some work before it's featured in my opinion. Sorry. --ShabiDOO 20:44, November 27, 2013 (UTC)
There hasn't been any notable work on the article since the last nom. I still feel...very strongly...that the article misses many parody and humour opportunities covering such an enormous entity as Europe and the European Union, that there are many random seeming lines/paragraphs, that the concept or strategy of the article doesn't come across and that the laugh to word count ratio could be higher. In my humble opinion. I'd be happy to expand/give examples if interested. --ShabiDOO 01:07, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
shelf for Should have put this up earlier to catch the 50th anniversary stampede. Better late than never, maybe the needed 20 votes will flow to it like water and it can be up for the 22nd (in 2063!). thanks for the read. Aleister 14:05 19/11/13
FOR, FOR, FORRRR!!!!!! BRILLIANT - I have been waiting for someone to cotton on to the fact that the semmingly thousands of JFK documentaries released on US TV (and a few on British TV even), despite claiming that they after 50 years finally know the truth, will never get any further in finding the truth than we could before. Al has done a brilliant job here and he needs the highest commendations. SirScottPat (talk) VFHUnSNotM 19:53, November 19, 2013 (UTC)
Reluctant for. It's helarious at times and I get the concept...but comes across a little cheesy to me in a few lines and that image of the cat with the gun is kind of meme-ish. Is that a word? --ShabiDOO 01:12, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
The film of the cat was in the Warren Commission Report, exactly as used on the page. Life is stranger than fiction, I can't make this stuff up. Thanks for the votes. Aleister 13:08 22/11/13
Has been nommed and lost before. Reason for nominating: It's Hyperbole's favorite page on the wiki and it's tied for my favorite page with one other (also not featured), so with those two things in mind I figure that a certain percentage of our readership will also be extremely impressed with this grand piece of satire. Seemed like a good enough reason to try again, and to urge a favorable vote even if you don't like or are neutral on the page. Aleister 28-10 (four year anniversary)
For. Seems indeed to be a clever satirical page, probably not an in-joke. And our readers won't be harmed by the small amount of content. Anton (talk) 12:48, October 30, 2013 (UTC)
This is one of my top 10 favourites of all time. I can't believe it hasn't been featured! --ShabiDOO 03:32, November 6, 2013 (UTC)