Uncyclopedia:VFH/Michael Jackson (Colonization)

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Michael Jackson (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: Michael Jackson	Score: 7.5 brilliant artists
Nominated by:	—Sir SysRq (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
For: 19.5	N♥m && w♥v. Hello again from Imperial Colonization! After a little bit of a fiasco over the last few weeks, we're back with what I think is yet another gem on the same level as Al Gore. We had great participation and some great ideas with this one, and I think that our finished product is more than presentable. Personally, I'm just glad to see the old MJ article gone for good. I don't think anyone could say that it wasn't a vast improvement, but I think it's also featurable. Whether it's featured or not, I'm very proud of those Lobsterbacks. —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  For.. You have a Yes from over here in the Ancient History corner.--Romartus 15:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  For. And from over here in the useless douchebag corner ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 15:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  Very For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  For. Per the two sentences I contributed.Saberwolf116 15:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  For. Per my PEE. The fact that people have been blanking the article saying "A FAN BOY WROTE IT" is hilarious enough as it is regardless of the fact that this article is true quality. Next time someone asks for an example of sophisticated humour I will point them at this. It's subtle, clever, funny and it rocks. MrN 16:02, Mar 29  For. --Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods  For. Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 16:39, Mar. 29, 2009  For. A good IC conquest. --Dame 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC) for. i actually really like how this turned out. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)  For. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 05:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)  GIVE THIS ARTICLE A SECDOND CHANCE! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC) For. As a loyal soldier in the Imperial Colonization Army it's my doody... -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:54, 31 Mar For with comment below. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC) For. I agree with Nach on most points. But; I've seen worse article being featured and it was funny enough to deserve a chance. --Kit talk 18:25 31 March For of course. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 22:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)  5-1 SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Pedo lol 81.165.225.248 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) For. Lol. » Zheliel Talk Contribs Cow » 09:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)  For. Nice article. Zeitgeist 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Against: 12	Weak against. Wow, jeez. The article is better than it was before, but despite that, I'd say it's more of the level of IC's previous rabbit-in-the-hat: Jew. It feels like it is struggling to find humour with this guy that doesn't stoop to the horrible levels of paedophillia/surgery/mentality mocking and whatnot. The article tries to replace this mirth absence with more and more text that is more serious than silly, creating entire paragraphs that I get bored of after a few lines. I can see some humour in this, not to mention improvement, but nothing that makes me think of VFH. This article really delves in well with IC's intentions, but I've thought of a few cricitisms since the Jew article was completed, that result in my against vote here. Also I don't want to clog up this here voting page. I thought it was decent work overall, but to then say it's featurable, the buck stops there. --Nachlader-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 15:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC) "Self"-Against. Nach said it all there. Can't say I'm entirely pleased how this turned out. I was disillusioned first when deciding the concept; I knew that mixing the serious with the "silly" (which, in the end, was almost naught) would lead to a very unbalanced article, which was why I wanted to just take a straight parody tone and be done with this novelty and conceptual work that didn't work all too well with Jew. In the end, my fears came true. Sorry, but this still needs much more work. There's too much deadwood and far too few laughs. -- T​K​F​​U​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 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Against Better than one would think an article about Michael would be, but still... Per Nach & TKF. You can hate me now. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC) No It is well written but there is just a lack of humour, it tries to do the "refute all the commonly held beliefs" route but doesn't hit the mark. There's just no real grabbing ideas or lines. It is good but not feature good, just a decent article. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Against. --Docile hippopotamus 12:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Against. Look, it's not a bad article. Maybe it's the best article there could be. I just don't think it's possible to find any humor in this subject. You know why? Because, when the guy's entire life is a joke, making jokes about his life is just... redundant. pillow talk 18:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Against. Per TKF. I think this is an amazing improvement job, and better than I ever thought an article on the guy could be. And I am a huge fan of deadpan stuff. But no, I think this needs more love to really make it featurable. --UU - natter 10:30, Mar 31 Against, per all the others. I particularly think the first couple of sections could be improved. It gets better as the article goes along, but many readers won't get that far. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Against - like has been stated, it's a lot better than what was there, but it doesn't seem good enough as an overall concept for FA. It seems like this is one of those subjects where there's just no real way to get a feature out of it. –—Hv (talk) 4/04 20:43 Against. IronLung 01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Against. --Moneke 10:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC) lame aswell --Linosuar2 13:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments	Reviewed by MrN. (42/50) —Sir SysRq (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Facts can be funny too, if they are presented in the right way. Sure, some of the stuff is not really interesting and only moderately funny. The article as a whole, however, I find very funny and cleverly satirical. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Useless Abstain. I was all set to vote for and then Nachlader had to go and spoil the mood. Poopy. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:10, Mar 30 I'm Shocked. Seriously that people are voting against this. The Dangling Baby Conundrum section for one is shear class. "it is possible he was merely trying to identify with his millions of German fans" Come on! That's awesome!!! There is a style of humour called Deadpan you know... MrN 21:04, Mar 30 Jew. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 05:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I agree overall with what Nachlader, TKF etc are saying - despite IC, this article isn't great. But, IC did their best and it's massively better than it was. The thing is, it's not easy to be funny on demand - that's why professional comedians get so pissed off with people asking them to say something funny all the time. If this is featured, it's right there where lots of people are going to see it and hopefully think of new stuff to add which - hopefully - will allow it to develop further. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 15:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC) ...Jew. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Well spotted. *Zips trousers up* Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) A sufficiently clever personal assault but still only that. Style  Guide 18:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Looks like this is going to get quasi-featured. I wonder what the template will look like? Saberwolf116 17:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Possibly like a quasi-feature template -- T​K​F​​U​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 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH