From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: Sarah Palin
|
Score: -1
|
| Nominated by:
|
Jayseki 08:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 7
|
 For.--Sycamore (Talk) 08:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)- For. Sure. Rather of lot of people have chipped into writing this one. It's a great example of how a collaboration involving a large number of different users can create something good. MrN
 17:11, Oct 19
- For.
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. JudgeZarbi
 TALK 17:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. I want an article on Sarah Palin's cat, too. Le Cejak • <17:28 Oct 19, 2008>
- For. You betcha' Dame
 GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 18:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- For. she was just on SNL, and right now is she is (most likely) as well-known as she is going to get Jayseki 21:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 8
|
- Against, not in its current form at least. There are some good parts, but there are too many random sections (feature film?) and dumb pictures. It feels like it's been written by several different authors. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 19:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 Not Foar. Sorry, didn't find that very funny at all, and it was obviously done by many people 9its poorly put together. And the amount of pictures severely outweigh the amount of text, and don't add anything.  Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell • Latest literary excretion) __ 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)- I have a fedora. No subtlety to speak of, just more of the same crap that one finds easily by mashing Random Page. Ж Kalir, Crazy Indie Gamer (missile ponies for everyone!) 01:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Against. Too inconsistent. Still needs work. I mean, it's wayyyy better than it was, and wayyy better than I first expected, but still very patchy. --UU - natter
 09:18, Oct 20
- Not for Has good parts but other sections are inconsistent or simply just random. Smooth out the style and give it a more consistent tone and then I'll vote for. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     09:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Against - It's like lipstick on Joe the Plumber's asscrack. – Kip > Talk • Works ••
         14:08, Oct. 20, 2008
- Nah. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:23, Oct 20
- against. much better than pretty much all of the current event-y articles being mucked up by IPs, kudos to you guys who have made it a solid article, but i still feel like it's not quite front page ready. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- Abstain I don't even think this lady deserves an article. If she gets one, I demand that my cat gets and article as well! And not just an UnNews or a poem! I'm talking about a full article, dammit! I'm serious. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dexter, Dexter... Always talking about pussies... MrN 17:22, Oct 19
- 15Mickey20 The feature film section has been removed... Trouble is... This HAS been written by a lot of different authors... Maybe the style can be smoothed out a bit... MrN 22:08, Oct 19
- It could be better... there's still too many bad pictures, and the text could be made more consistent. The email hacking bit doesn't do it for me. But it's close! And I think it deserves a good article. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 23:17, 19 Oct 2008
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
For.--
Not Foar. Sorry, didn't find that very funny at all, and it was obviously done by many people 9its poorly put together. And the amount of pictures severely outweigh the amount of text, and don't add anything. 
