From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Re: your comments on Uncyclopedia:VFH. It's difficult to tell you exactly what to change or improve; however, as far as I can see, the main problems with it are:
- You seem to be aiming for "random" rather than "funny"
- It's not very long
- It's not very detailed
- It's crazy jibberish rather than parody or satire
You're right that it's not 100% shit; if it were, it would have been VFD'd fairly quickly. My best advice to you if you really want a featured article is to have a look at these previously featured articles. See what it requires. Read through HTBFANJS. But be creative, not just wacky. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
OK, I acknowledge all your remarks, except one: I'm not aiming for 'random', I just find that supreme humour is the one of absurdity (Monty Python - like), because it laughs of intelligence itself. Though I agree it may not be the funniest in average, but quality is not just being funny, or we could just enter and make a big fart and everyone will laugh. Probably the best possible joke is not funny at all! For example why scientists should always have predictable names like 'Einstein', "Hawking" or "Newton", and why they should not be hammers? After all this is perfectly possible under physics laws (you can have a hammer's head and be a good theorist). The article seemed perfectly factual to me, not random at all! I'm anyway going to retire the nomination for now, and welcoming further feedback (eg. see also the Pigeox article). --Xantox 18:42, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)