Uncyclopedia:VFH/The Bible

Article: Bible	Score: 3 believers
Nominated by:	EMC^[TALK] 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For: 11	Self nom & for; I did a serious rewrite to this article two years ago or so, and since then have kept up on the maintenance and have been constantly improving it. Here's the Pee Review, which I've attempted to use as a guideline for future improvements as I think the Pee Review is pretty solid. More improvements are always encouraged. --EMC^[TALK] 20:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Holy For. You don't see many good articles on major subjects like this one. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Floating just above limbo. It's good, in parts very good, so I think I'll vote it for just because the quality, particularly in the intro, is generally high, despite it requiring a minor cleanup and a bit of formatting imo --El Sid, the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC) For. Perhaps not the definitive version of this article but will be the authorised version if it gets a VFH. A minor quibble is perhaps you mildly underused the TV seasons idea for the article. What about the characters who disappear and then come back in the shower as with Bobbie Ewing in Dallas ? Otherwise this work deserves to go top. --*RomArtusImperator ® (Orate). 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC) For. TKFU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U UU U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U CK 01:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC) For. The movie cover in particular made me laugh.--You know what the music means...** Our time is up. 13:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC) For, because I don't want to Hell. Atomik Spongeface • Ⓣ Ⓒ 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC) For. POTR is right, but I still like it ChiefjusticeDS 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC) For I thought I voted for when I made that smug comment to Sipi... Guess not. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC) For. Poker-faced. *Style* *Guide* 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC) For. Really neat. --UU - natter 10:49, Aug 11
Against: 8	Against. I don't like to sin. 17:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)– Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipi1230 (talk • contribs) And you also don't like to sign correctly. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Against. InMooseWeTrust 01:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Not because it's not funny, but because it's not finished. Needs proofreading, cut down the less funny stuff to get to a tightly done piece. There's a few people who have read this and voted against, while those who either have not read the article are called Abstainers. Pup t 05:48, 9/08/2009 Against. Seems a lot more bitter than funny. I laughed about twice, which is unacceptable for an article that long. Also Mormons were totally underrepresented. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:54, Aug 10 Against. per above. --Docile hippopotamus 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Against. Agree with Necropaxx. Needs appealing funny stuff for me to change my vote. Nameable • mumble? 13:13, 17 Against. Not very funny, as most of the stuff about contradictions has been beaten to death, there's still grammatical errors, and hell, most all the "humor" has been around for years. Just not very original, sorry. -- Clemens177 Against The article seemed to focus more on trying to subtly convince the reader that the bible is full of hatred than to make a satirical article. --—Mazaka (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)