Uncyclopedia:VFH/Fat Americans (2)

Article: Fat Americans	Score: -4
Nominated by:	Æ 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
For: 4	SNF - this failed earlier today due to violation of Martial law, but there's an open slot, so I'm renomming. This did well on PR twice twice, and it has greatly improved since the first review, so I'm giving it a shot--Æ 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC) For as per last time i for'd. :P ~Fag x FS For Likes a good rant I does. Oh, nice rewrite: User:MrN9000/Fat_americans. Mr N 01:23, Feb 1 Weak For Enjoyed it, but it just barely sneaks past the feature bar for me. Still, great article. - UnIdiot \| Talk? \| Theme - 01:39, Feb 1
Against: 8	Sorry too much of a rant Sir DJ ~ Irreverent No Too ranty, not that funny --Bassguy 09:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Not for me either....sorry. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me) Nah It's good; I just don't think it's feature-worthy. --Dexter111344 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Blah. --*Sir* Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 01:17, Feb. 1, 2008 Meh Not bad, not good. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Meh Not another one of these. ----Pleb- Sawblade5 ^{[citation needed]}⁽ ^yell ^\| ^FAQ ^\| ^{I did this} ⁾ 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Against but if was recorded nicely enough, it might show what you are trying to achieve. George Bush is not a polarizing figure in my life, so his inclusion doesn't make me happy or sad or skeet. *Sir Severian* (Sprich mit mir!)
Comments	Comment - It's written by the perspective of a crazy Brit who's exaggarating, so it was ranty, but I still tried to remove the ranting as much as possible. It would be nice if you reconsidered your votes or if there's something in particular you don't like about it, I can remove or rewrite it.--Æ 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Abstain. I can see what you're trying for AE, and it's a big improvement, but it's just not feeling "there" for me. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH \| GUN \| Natter \| Uh oh \| Pee 09:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)