For: 15.5
|
- For Good one from DrStrange. Some people may have a problem with how the page looks and the amount of pictures, but I like the set up, and it made me laugh. Gets my vote. The Woodburninator (woodtalk) (woodstalk) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. I do have a problem with the images but still good enough. Style
 Guide 07:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. As per Multi. RabbiTechno 10:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Like Nachlader I'm a fan of encyclopaedic style articles. I was really not sure how to vote on this one when it was first nominated. Now that DrStrange has made this look a bit more like a article which parodies Wikipedia it's a dam fine Uncyc article. MrN
 15:54, Dec 20
- For. Situation has changed so I'm the only whore in Uncyclopedia. --Nachlader 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Ah, that's better, I can see the good article that was hiding in there. Good work Doc! --UU - natter
 20:36, Dec 20
- For. This brings up some nice traumatic memories. Ah yes, good times, good times... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 18:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. bit of an image whore but its funny 173.102.100.102 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- w♥v I'm breaking my vow to never self-nom or vote because Stuart Smalley told me that I was good enough, smart enough and that people like me.--
   14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. It's not the best article I've ever seen, and it wasn't whored as much as I would've liked, but it's pretty okay. Le Cejak • <15:10 Dec 23, 2008> 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- For. Worth a good laugh, I suppose. Meta 500 18:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- For --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I approve of this article. I am the Supreme Ruler of Reality, kneel before my presence!
- I'm a man of my word. —Sir SysRq (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- For. IronLung 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- For lowering standards if we are going to one feature a day. Good enough. --Mnbvcxz 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 0
|
Against. It's too much of an image whore for VFH, in my opinion. Images are always awesome, giving a sight for sore eyes and relinquishes the overwhelming job of having to read a wall of text, maybe three or four for the average article, but you don't need twenty-eight of the darn things. Moreover, a multitude of images can easily encourage readers to just ignore the text and flip through the pictures instead. I know there are some committed readers who will willingly perform the heavenly delight that is, well, reading, but not all visitors to the site will; my first instinct upon seeing this article, despite my love for literature, was to just look at the pile of images instead. That, and the images lack captions and disrupt the text formation. --Nachlader 22:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Against. For the same basic reasons as Nachlader, but more concise-like. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:47, Dec 19Against per above, but even more concise.--Mnbvcxz 17:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
- Comment. I guess the page could be cleaned up a bit. Style Guide 07:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not right now Formatting is appalling. It's somewhat funny but covering it in pictures really detracts... unless you make something like a photo album down the side... that could work... I'll do it! --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     08:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reformat: The formatting digresses from a Wickipedia mockery into an underground magazine, IMO. This one just came out of the oven, so give me this morning to do a little work. Smaller flanking columns of the pics on each side might work better. Is the row of three pics across thingy annoying?-- 10:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK: I took out the hatchet and did some trimming. The top looks better now. I just can't force myself to change the female adolescent section despite the shotgun blast of pics.-- 12:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- ??: Frankly, the pictures used in "Youth" don't need to be tied to the story with captions, unlike the majority of articles here, which is probably a new experience for you. (You actually counted how many pics were used?) Do people not read comic books because they get distracted by all the flashy pictures? At least have enough faith in your criticisms to personalize them instead of using the hypothetical opinion of the masses. You've dangled this article like a dead rat for having too many pictures.....that's it. If I had a buck for every pic in a "featured article" that disturbed section breaks and "normal" flow of type, I'd be fucking rich! Well, not really.....maybe by 2040. (I've been a printing press operator for over 20 years, so this reads like a "style" complaint from the competition.....it looks TOO DAMN GOOD for your sensibilities) But seriously, I expect this. I have a history of being singled out as the guy who goes too far and will eventually destroy western civilization as we know it so you MUST be a barometer of the average person. I'll try to "box" the pics from now on with my pic editor for that sense of "boundary" we all crave-- 07:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You're right but for one thing: wrong image/text ratio for a comic. Text is good and it would be a pity for this to flop because of something trivial. Why not make the thumbs smaller, and why not drop the least interesting ones, or group them in the editor - many possibilities to make it look less annoying. Style Guide 11:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain. Youth is wasted on the young. Also, I agree there are just too many darn images, and I could happily prune at least half of them and I don't think it would adversely affect the article, in fact it would probably improve it. Don't be too precious here Doc Strange, I think it's a good article, but you need to be a little more ruthless - you won't be the first writer who finds it hard to trim stuff they like from an article, but sometimes it needs to be done. --UU - natter 11:26, Dec 20
- I Like the cut of your jib, young man......Smithers! Fetch me my laptop, we have editing to do!-- 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done....gutted...slashed...-- 15:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vote changed accordingly. We should do this again sometime. --UU - natter 20:36, Dec 20
- Comment, although only to explain my against vote. Anyway, there is quite the difference between comic books and a Wiki article: the latter usually consisting of a continuous word output that results in a tower of prose, but with comics, unless it's printed by Vertigo, comic books usually lack a wall of text making up the most of even a single page. In fact the only way a Wiki page and a comic book could look alike (aside from uploading an image of an actual comic) is via using only images with a caption denoting any dialogue or Brian Blessed-esque narration that is easily readable, boasting only two or three sentences max most of the time, an effect clearly not attained in this article, so reading Youth is nothing like reading any comic book I've read.
- One reason why I prefer seeing captioned images in Uncyclopedia article is because it mimicks the style of a Wikipedia page, which, unless I'm mistaken, this site is a parody of. Not all articles have to be like this and I love the idea of Uncyclopedia becoming a more general humour site rather than a project confined to the depths of Encyclopedia parody, but it does strike me as odd that humour potential is wasted when all twenty-eight (yes, I counted them, is that so suprising? It would've sounded pathetic if there were actually 488 images in this article, but you know, it could've happened) of the pictures lack a caption and offer no description of what is going on in the image to relate with the article, even if it's just an obvious fact. I agree it's certainly not the end of the world, but I prefer to see captionalised images in articles. Remember that this is my opinion. As are my "sensibilities".
- The "barometer" reason is courtesy of further exploration of thinking, what the majority of thoughts may be, against my own, whilst priortising my "personalized" opinion beforehand. I like jokes about football, but not everyone appreciates soccerball jokes as I do. So if I encountered an article on football on PEE, I would state that while I, the reviewer, appreciates the humour, not everyone who reads the site will understand it, so I end up giving the concept a low score anyway. A further example is when I reviewed Nuneaton, a town in Britain, I docked the points slightly, decreeing that not everybody on the site will understand the joke, unlike an article such as innuendo or redundancy, of which you could only possibly fail to understand if you're an idiot or three years old, or an idiot who is three years old. I hope you're not either of them.
- Furthermore, just because several featured articles still have some niggles, whatever they may be, a unusually high population of images, blinding red links, distasteful spelling mistakes and the like, doesn't mean you don't have to bother about them either. Not every FA has got off without having at least one vote against it. As well as that, formatting, red links, typos, whatever are easily dealt with. My vote isn't permanent, it's just against the current state of the article. Okay, now I'm going to do something useful, relating to non-interweb needs. --Nachlader 13:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Instead of continuing my pissing and moaning about your stance, I've decided to divert my angst into a new page called Images. This WILL NOT be an inside-joke page specifically designed to piss you off, so please don't take it as such. I'll be focusing the whiny negative energy in my brain, which was generated by your criticism, into sardonic humor. I appreciate the motivation.....seriously.........no seriously.......I'm not being sarcastic.--v 14:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, look at that! Awesome discussion guys. I'm now happy to vote as a result of the changes made. I wish more people would take this level of interest in VFH nominations... MrN 15:54, Dec 20
- None taken (offense + sarcasm, that is). The change to the article is superb, although some more captions certainly wouldn't hurt. Changing vote to for. --Nachlader 16:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've added in more thumbs/captions, I'll be tweaking with formatting and the issues brought up and be done by tomorrow morning.-- 19:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Conditional w♥v. When I see this thing cleaned up, I'll switch to for. Great article, just very ugly right now. —Sir SysRq (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Snip Snip New edits. Buy My Book! -- 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 Changing to Abstain • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 16:20, Jan 6
|
Changing to Abstain 
17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)