From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Classical Satire
|
Score: 11 horse-mangling classical humourists
|
| Nominated by:
|
Style  Guide 07:03, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 13
|
- Self-nom + For. I intend to reply to all against/comments on the article's talk page. Thanks for your attention. Style Guide 07:05, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- For. Excellent Neo-Classical satire -- El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 10:52, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- For. Rabbi Techno
 kvetch  Contribs  FOXES 12:26, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Nice. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:23, 13 December 2009
- Touches me in my special places. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- Weak For. Reluctant, I'm not quite sure I get why I like it, so I dunno. But for now, it's a for...
 FUCK YEAH I AM SO PUNK ROCK! 08:17, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- For —
 talk 10:18, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- Weak for. It starts by saying that classical satire is so wordy and subtle that it's boring and unfunny, and then it tries to emulate that style. Not surprisingly, then, the article isn't really laugh-out-loud funny. But it's very well done.
 pillow talk 19:28, December 14, 2009 (UTC)
- For. -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN18:00, 15 Dec
- For. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA
 AMUSE ME • 04:34 • Wednesday, 16-12-2009
- For. Entertaining. Foot notes could've been a little more comprehensive though. Manosaurus 09:43, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
 For.. ~Formerly Annoying Crap 06:22, 18 December 2009- For. Didn't understand a fucking word of it. At least there is a completed review for it now. Pup 05:09, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 2
|
- Against. Reluctant against but I think it just tries to cover too much and doesn't flow smoothly to be satisfactory.
 RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:29, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- See the comments on the article's talk page, please! -- Style Guide 19:20, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Against I'm inclined to agree with Romartus. I figured you were purposely trying to be boring, but unfortunately you did your job too well. I found myself accidentally skimming over the really funny parts because the article got so boring. I can appreciate the droning-professor tone if it is a bit more clever, but the article was just too wordy for the likes of me. Not saying it's a bad article, just that if it was featured a lot of potential users would see it and dismiss it after the first paragraph. It doesn't have good readability.--Chay <Contribs UNSOC Also> 15:51, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
- You too - see comments on the talk page of the article. -- Style Guide 16:23, December 17, 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
Pee review here. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 10:24, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
- Or not. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:23, 13 December 2009
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
Always check the feature queue first.
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.
Guide 07:03, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
For.. ~
12:15, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
12:15, December 21, 2009 (UTC)