From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Art That Looks Like Nothing
|
Score: 11 "abstract" paintings
|
| Nominated by:
|
Sonic80
|
For: 15
|
- SN+4 - I wrote this and had it pee reviewed it received a 42.5/50 so I went in and fixed the prose and formatting problems, and now it is ready for VFH in my opinion. --Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- zbviasvsdyb - that's the post-modern Art way of saying "FOR" -- Prof. Olipro
 KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- For Yep, it's true Sonic is a good writer, but that's not news? MrN
 13:42, Jul 28
- For. I don't know about art, but I know what I hate. And I don't hate this. </Mr Burns>. --UU - natter
 14:27, Jul 28
 For. - Good--Sycamore (Talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)- For. Liked it when I Peed it, like it now. --mrmonkey72 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- For --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- zbviasvsdyb. i just want to be popular. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Weak for because the writing is excellent.
 pillow talk 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Very very weak for ~ Mgr.ReadMeSoon!? 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sure Le Cejak • <2:17, 01 Aug 2008>
- For Fou-Lu 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Weakish for. I like the first picture and its caption the most. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 00:08, Aug 6
- F♥r. Very nice article, I like it. Good job, Sonic. sir
 sysrq @ 17:36 Aug 6
- For.It's so TRUE,i like it.--LOLsupreme 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 4
|
- Nah See Conceptual Art and Jackson Pollock, both are good examples of this idea - sure it was well written but it didn't really make me laugh. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- What the DJ said. And the humor wasn't much more than what I'd expect from an article with this title. --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 02:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Against. Ridiculously-simple-money-making-scheme type jokes have been done over again, both on and off Uncyclopedia, to the point where they are now too generic to be featured. TheMothAssassin 17:18, August 3 2008
- Nah --Moneke 14:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
 sorry its a funny concept, but i wouldnt call it bad nor feature worthy.theres not alotta meat in the article. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezlr (talk • contribs)
- Wait, is meat a bad thing? --Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 04:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I resent that comment MrN, I am not just a one note song! --Mgr. Sir Sonic80☭ 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite Great concept, but no jokes made me laugh. I smiled a couple of times, so you don't get the typical against I give for not tickling my funnybone.--<<
 >> 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Meh Per DJ and Brad. -RAHB 23:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain - Well, the key to writing these articles is to not have a too much of an agenda, an 'axe to grind' as it were - but it was too evident in the tone of the article. There were some laugh-out-loud moments, offset by the bias of the author against the idea, and I actually thought that the first painting looked quite skilful compared to some art (that really does look like nothing!) I've seen. --Knucmo2 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
| Click to feature this article
|
| 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.
|
For. - Good--
sorry its a funny concept, but i wouldnt call it bad nor feature worthy.theres not alotta 
