From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Paradise Inc.
|
Score: 13
|
| Nominated by:
|
Sir DJ ~ Irreverent      14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 13
|
- Awesomely awesome Why does no one write articles like that anymore? :( --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- For This article, literally, changed my life. Before it, I was a hopeless drifter. Now, a hopeful drifter. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- For. Parsat, or, A Whole Bunch of Mischief 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Surprised this hasn't been featured already. Great images too! :) -- Sir Mhaille
 (talk to me)
- For - Top Notch.--Sycamore (Talk) 21:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 For. Sheer genius Robertodole 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)- For as per the others. --THE 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- For --
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  20:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- For --Sir Starnestommy
 (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 01:48, Apr. 23, 2008
- For --The Improver talk • contribs • 18:25, Apr 23 2008 (UTC)
- For --MNM5150Talk Dirty To Me Failings 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You got it
Babe -  Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate  14:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 0
|
No way Why does no one write articles like that anymore? - because it's shit. --CaleyJag 15:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to call that a troll vote. I doubt that anyone that counts will object. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Straight from that big box at the top of VFH: "Voters: don't be dicks and do be constructive with criticism." - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
 (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:00, Apr 16
- I think you unknowingly answered my question. I think we have plenty of articles in the Chuck Norris facts section to keep you happy. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 05:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I, for one, think his vote should be discounted and, just to spite him, be turned into three for votes for this brilliant article. You know, just on the by and by from this disinterested bystander. Ahem. --129.137.158.65 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with that handsome anonymous person above me who I absolutely do not know nor am responsible for. --Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
 Meh. While this article is fine and all, it still sounds strange in some areas. I think this needs to be proofread. My other concern is the weak ending. It sorta drops off with a short and semi-related section that just feels so out of place to me. If I were to see some improvement, I would change my vote to For. But I'm not going to vote Against because this was still pretty clever. sir sysrq @ 18:06 Apr 16
- Yeah the end is a bit of a disappointment --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- Abs Per SysRq mostly. -RAHB 04:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Abs Due to me not wanting to vote for or against. Could use a chop back here and there I think. MrN
 18:53, Apr 22
|
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.
14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
For. Sheer genius 
Meh. While this article is fine and all, it still sounds strange in some areas. I think this needs to be proofread. My other concern is the weak ending. It sorta drops off with a short and semi-related section that just feels so out of place to me. If I were to see some improvement, I would change my vote to For. But I'm not going to vote Against because this was still pretty clever. 
