| Article: Female
|
Score: -3 sexist articles
|
| Nominated by:
|
Mn-z 05:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 2
|
- nom +4 collaborative effort with User:DrStrange. Also, its the only non-"silly" article I have written that hasn't been nommed of VFH yet. --Mn-z 05:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- For. --Docile hippopotamus 06:34, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 5
|
- Maybe it's because I just read a Modus article but I couldn't find the funny in this one. Sorry. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     09:59, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- against. you had me in the beginning, but you lost me somewhere in the middle. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 02:14, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
- Against. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 05:02, Oct 1
- Nah. Some good stuff, but not enough for a feature. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:07, 1 October 2009
- Against. Sorry, it still feels like it needs work to me, and it's pretty patchy, I'm afraid. --UU - natter
 15:34, Oct 1
|
| Comments
|
- Pee review I did get a low score, but I've done some rework on it. --Mn-z 05:10, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
