From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Nursery
|
Score: 16 Eloquent Toddlers
|
| Nominated by:
|
Dame   15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 18
|
- nom&for. Orian57 brings us another disturbingly authentic depiction of life through the eyes of a child. --Dame 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- For I like Sonje because she nominated my story which is much better than anything Thomas can do -- he can't even do finger paintings, you have to put the paint on the page not your mouth and he's stupid because he doesn't know that! ~Orian57~
 ~Talk~  15:59 22 May 2009
 For. A good nomination ! --Romartus 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)- For per what I said earlier. —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, sure. Still a few things i'd like to see fixed that I pointed out in my review, but it's good enough as it is. Saberwolf116 03:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- For --Nikau 03:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. per above. Mnb'z 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. This is well written in the style it's trying to capture. It's funny, and satirical, but not exactly witty. It also has the feel of a featured article. I.E. it isn't really a specific kind of article, like history-themed or science -themed or something like that. It's got a fairly neutral theme. Hardly a line out of place. Very good. Dorsalfrog Prime 01:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- fwhore Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool
 15:37 May 25 '09
- For sure. T. (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- For Great article, friends laughed, I chuckled. - - -
 Silly Angel Speak Contribs 23:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. Oooh, it's got little kids in it! Another funny article from Mr. Oriano. Sheesh. - [08:17 26 May 2009] PlebYettie
- For. This is funny, therefore I vote for. --UU - natter
 12:58, May 26
- For Sexy Chick
 Zeitgeist 18:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah. Yeah.
 Don   Puttano cHeDDs       19:16,26May,2009 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- For -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN23:03, 26 May
- Strong For Despite the fact I think Mr.Orian should branch out from his first-person genre. But then again, he is really good at it so who am I to judge? Tagstit talk contribs awards 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 2
|
Against Been done by you before, and in a funnier manner. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent      03:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to be on VFH solely to vote against articles. Saberwolf116 03:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? --Nikau 03:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Against. Didn't enjoy it. --Docile hippopotamus 06:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Against. This made me sad, because it just didn't have the magic of the sandcastle one. :( • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 00:16, May 26
|
| Comments
|
- Abstain per DJ. I don't know why, but I'm pretty tired of the first-person genre. Don't cry, little one! It's not you: it's me. Le Cejak • <7:08 May 23, 2009>
- On the second read it is rather charming so who am I to say no. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks like this one is in the bag - - - Silly Angel Speak Contribs 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
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. A good nomination ! --
07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)