Uncyclopedia:VFH/UnNews: Massacre at Brookfield Zoo

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Re-feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Article: UnNews:Massacre at Brookfield Zoo	Score: -1
Nominated by:	It's Me Bitches! Don't worry, I won't kill you.
For: 4	For. It's Me Bitches! Don't worry, I won't kill you. I love you, socky. For Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:40 May 30 '09 For. Dame 16:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) For. --Docile hippopotamus 05:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Against: 5	Against on the condition that "Category: Ruffles the Tiger" gets featured instead. Having only one featured doesn't encompass the entire Ruffles experience T​K​F​​U​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 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I fully support featuring the category, on the condition that somebody writes some humorous introduction. But if I can get the Brookfield Zoo UnNews at feature quality, whether the category gets featured or not is besides the case. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)  Against. Well, I have to say I didn't laugh all that much. Staircase CUNt 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Against. Kind of... eh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:47, May 30 Against only the first one in the series is funny --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Against. IronLung 09:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comments	' Abstain.'. Seeing as it still has that "being reviewed" template. Don Puttano cHeDDs 16:41,30May,2009 16:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Updated. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'll probably switch to for, if you do something with the pics. They're good, but the alignment looks kind of strange. You fix tHAT, and it's a for. Don Puttano cHeDDs 17:43,30May,2009 If you "Print Screen" how it looks to you, I'll definitely fix it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Author's comment: As far as I'm concerned, this can be featured right away. Though if UU still does the review, I may make some changes to the article. I'm holding my vote for now, but unless the situation somehow drastically changes, it'll be a For. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Reviewer's comment: Also withholding my vote for now, based on what I said in the review. --UU - natter 19:59, May 30 Abstain. per tkf, the entire category should be nominated. Mnb'z 05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Updated author's comment: UU did a great review and I'm gonna work on it some more. If you don't think it's funny the way it is right now, you're free to vote against. I'll probably renominate it later on. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Abstain I like some parts, but most of it just isn't funny enough. Sorry Socky. Sexy Chick Zeitgeist 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH