Uncyclopedia:VFH/A wizard did it: A Retrospective

Article: A wizard did it: A Retrospective	Score: 3 grams of pixie dust
Nominated by:	Docile hippopotamus 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
For: 13	nom and for. It's funny. --Docile hippopotamus 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For featuring more retrospectives. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 03:36, Jul 30 For. Sir ACROLO KUN • FPW • AOTM • FA •(SPAM) 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Partial SelfFor. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 09:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Another partial Self For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC) For. Per Leddy. ^Dame 11:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Weak for. *Sir* Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 06:09, Jul. 31, 2009 Slightly positive meh. A bit eclectic in quality, but it definitely has its moments. TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 06:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Bless. 17YEARSOFcHeDDaR 14:40,31July,2009 Spoon!-I helped with it.--Bad Shroom 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) for. moral support. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) For. Looks better now than it did the first time I read it. As such I am changing my silent abstain to a for. Plus Dexter voted for it. -OptyC Sucks! CUN23:30, 4 Aug For. But the Chinese interpretation was a bit weak. Nameable • mumble? 09:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Against: 10	Against. Not funny. InMooseWeTrust 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't do it for me. ~ 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Eh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:56, Jul 30 Against. Something Dumb: A Retrospective is in danger of becoming a stale VFH formula. This didn't do it for me either. -- poopy Ape (frack) (Riot Porn) 23:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Against. Starts off well and then gets bored and wants to end it all in CAPS. So not a VFH according to my Movements in Vegetable Centuries Index. --*RomArtusImperator ® (Orate). 21:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Against. Per the last retrospective article I voted against tonight. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 01:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC) You mean this one? Seriously, I bet you hardly read any of the article. —Sir Socky** (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against.--Sycamore (Talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Was enjoying it but it totally went off the rails towards the end, I assume I'm missing an in-joke? -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 16:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Against. It just doesn't convey that same snide intelligence that Fisher-Price did. Parsat (talk / contribs) 23:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Nah. Not for me. Pup t 11:19, 6/08/2009 11:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments	Anyone with suggestions on how to make this better, please let me know. I'll be happy to improve the article a little more. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Abstain. So close, but it isn't there yet. Also, I'm too tired to put my reviewing hat back on ChiefjusticeDS 21:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Romartus, are you referring to the exact last line, as that is the punchline of the original article which this is a retrospective of, and therefore it's necessary... If you're referring to the IP's perspective, then I must agree. I don't really like that part, but I don't think you should vote against it because one part and not give a suggestion of what to do to fix it, though you seem to have an idea of what needs to be fixed, and I want to know what it is. And you other against voters smell like ass, so there. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Hey, to all against voters (other than Sid and Romartus because they actually made a point that is seems to ramble off a bit toward the end), mind elaborating a bit more on your against votes? Constructive criticism is more than welcome, guys. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah sure. My issue is that, while doing a retrospective on a stupid piece of crap was new and fresh with Fisher Price, now it occurs every time there is a new stupid piece of crap, and thus it loses its impact. Also, the beauty of Fisher Price: A Retrospective was that it cleverly found loads of ways of playing on the words "go eat shit fuckers". I don't think you have quite achieved that. -- poopy Ape (frack) (Riot Porn) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks Ape. I tried to do that a bit with the "Chinese linguistics expert" section, but that alone does seem to be a bit random since the rest is actually talking about how "A wizard did it" has been used throughout history. I'll think of a way to make it a bit more consistent after an admin closes this vote (seeing as it only has 33% health). Now to get the other five against voters to elaborate a bit. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC) To be fair, the Fisher Price Retrospective is an almost impossible target, so any other similar article will always have to dwell in the shadow it casts. This article when viewed as a standalone is pretty funny, it really is just the end that goes downhill for me. --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC) The very last line? Wait, tell me which section begins it's descent to unfunny. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Dexter, I'm gonna give it an in-depth look over and leave some suggestions on the talk page. I might even help write if you want. -- poopy Ape (frack) (Riot Porn) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Ape, have I mentioned that you rock (but you're nowhere Tool cause they push the boundaries like no other and stuff)? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) I was gonna make a few additional interpretations and fix up the article by tomorrow or something. But really, all help and advice is very much appreciated. The more the merrier. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 23:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)