Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnNews:Boston wins Stanley Cup while sore losers destroy their city

UnNews:Boston wins Stanley Cup while sore losers destroy their city (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: UnNews:Boston wins Stanley Cup while sore losers destroy their city	Score: 2
Nominated by:	-> That's Poop Man Poop 17:24, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
For: 7	For. Mattsnow's sense of humor is worthy of a Nobel prize, if ever there was a category for these things. Fuck you Nobel! -> That's Poop Man Poop 17:25, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Self-for. Mattsnow 17:39, June 19, 2011 (UTC) For. Wish this could be featured soon if not a couple of days ago. As with all timely UnNews, it's timely. Aleister 19:19 19-6 (19) For. frickin genius ShabiDOO 21:08, June 19, 2011 (UTC) For. I was cheering for the Bruins to win. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 23:46, 19 June 2011 For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:16, 20 June 2011 For. Nice. MadMax 06:27, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
Against: 5	Against. It was good, yeah. But I didn't find it front page worthy, and I still don't. Sorry. ~ Talk 22:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Against. The article's main joke is in the first paragraph & isn't well developed beyond that. The second paragraph introduces the classic "describe things considered important by some people as literally as possible, thereby demeaning it" which is very Adams-like and I like it, but it's contradicted by the article's very title! In short it's got good bits but they feel all forcibly stuck together instead of gradually developing into a solid article. You should take your ideas here and restructure the thing, perhaps. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:19 Jun 19, 2011 What thems two said. I'm not ecstatic to vote for topical UnNewses unless they're absolutely-fucking-holy-shit-really-this-is-the-funniest-goddamn-thing-I've-ever-read, even if they're my own. And, much like hockey itself, this doesn't really inspire me. 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 23:41, June 19, 2011 (UTC) Against. Not good enough for the front page. Dr. Fenwick 02:17, June 21, 2011 (UTC) Against. Been on the fence about this one for a while but I'm going to have to go with no (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2011
Comments	The article is by no means perfect, but this is wholy-fucking helarious shit. You have a great pulse on the sentiment and a briliant take on canadian politics and power which is still accesible to any reader. Nieeece work however it ends up. --ShabiDOO 04:13, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Thank you, I was very confident in this one, I lolled so much while rushing to finish it so I would complete it while the subject was still fresh. I'm kinda surprised at the reaction so far, but the criticism is constructive, so I can't complain. Humor is subject to many interpretations. Mattsnow 05:38, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I just tweaked it some, the first few paragraphs notably, as suggested. Mattsnow 06:08, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Abstain + Comment I don't feel strongly enough to vote either way, but it really strikes me that the headline bears almost no relation to the actual article.~~ S i r Ljlego , GUN [talk] 21:48, June 20, 2011 (UTC) I kinda understand what you mean, since I don't talk about the Bruins at all. I started the article with one thing in mind, and then like a crooked snake it took another direction I failed to reflect when I got it out of my userspace. For my personal growth, what would I have to do in order to change the title so all links follow? Mattsnow 05:30, June 25, 2011 (UTC)