- Writers: Don't be prima donnas. Be open to criticism.
- Voters: Please try and include some kind of reasoning. When voting against, explain where the article falls short so that the author can perhaps try and fix it up and improve it.
- This is not a discussion page. If you'd like detailed feedback on your article, please submit it for a PeeReview.
- Want a gadget that lets you mark the articles you've already voted on? Follow the instructions here to enable it.
- View recent changes for VFH here, and if deleted nominations are showing up and that bugs you, click here to purge the list.
- Due to a technical glitch caused by DPL being a dumbass, any signature with two dashes (i.e. "--") will cause the VFH page to go kaput.
- Please for the love of Sophia almighty stop nominating the Main Page. It was funny the first time, but the joke's getting stale by now.
Any and all violators of policy will be
crucified.
VFH status:
6.2 votes per article • Goal: 5
Search VFH archive
VFH is not a discussion page. If you'd like constructive criticism for your article, please submit it to Uncyclopedia:Pee Review.
All nominated articles
(feature) (remove)
| Vote
|
Score: 5
|
| Nomination:
|
AtomicAnon (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
|
For Votes: 5
|
Nom. AtomicAnon (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
For. For Soviet☭ (Ask for free votes) 01:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- Amazeballs. Well done MK ShabiDOO 11:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- For. Fridge Monkey (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
For. this article turned me into a fine red mist Gamma Here, friend, have some meth. 14:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
|
Against Votes: 0
|
No against votes
|
| Comments
|
Comment. mildly surprised this got nommed before any of my other articles, but very much appreciated @AtmoicAnon, glad to know it was enjoyable :3 MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 02:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- My apologies, but You STUPID DUMBASSARY USER! How do you not know the proper way to speak the English language, MK? As we all know, the correct way of spelling AtomicAnon is AtomicAnon!!! Obviously not AtmoicAnon!!! In fact, since you said that, not only have you offended me, but the entire history of the Anglo-Saxon language chain, MK. AtomicAnon (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
- oh deer, thats quite embarassing haha
MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 14:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
|
(feature) (remove)
| Vote
|
Score: 2.5
|
| Nomination:
|
AtomicAnon (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
|
For Votes: 2.5
|
Zombiebaron. AtomicAnon (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Half for. its a liiiiittle random, but plenty of significantly worse articles have been featured before MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 02:16, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
For. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 09:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
|
Against Votes: 0
|
No against votes
|
| Comments
|
This article is kind of meh. It's not bad, but just doesn't have the laughs, cleverness or umph that an article really ought to have to be featured. It's just not up to par with what we typically put on the front page. ShabiDOO 19:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- Shabidoo Then vote against, that's what an against vote is for. It's not automatically sent to VFD if it fails VFH ー Preceding signed comment added by Squaw Dee (owns uncyclopedia • talk • contribs) 19:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
- We aren't obligated to vote against either just because we don't have a favourable opinion of an article. I only do that if I am very much against it (I'm not a fan myself of against votes and haven't done it for years). I'm still keen to express my opinion about the article even if I think an against vote isn't warranted. ShabiDOO 11:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
|
(feature) (remove)
(feature) (remove)
| Vote
|
Score: 4.5
|
| Nomination:
|
AtomicAnon (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
|
For Votes: 4.5
|
Foregon AtomicAnon (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Half for. now that the red links are gone, it's not bad! not a huge fan of the lists being 50% of the content tho MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 01:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
For. Oregon....? I wonder if there's a trail... Purplexed INSULT ME!!! 15:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
For. The UnBusiness Board approves. Self explanatory. TheLitThing (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC) TheLitThing (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
For. it's fun, and a little aged. not bogged by anything, really. Feacher it ~GoatLordServa/ent talk 12:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
|
Against Votes: 0
|
No against votes
|
| Comments
|
@Purplexed: Together... We are... Oregon Trail AtomicAnon (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- This article isn't bad per-se, but it's also meh. I'm wary of featuring meh articles with little notable humour. ShabiDOO 16:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
|
(feature) (remove)
| Vote
|
Score: 4 dougdoug dougs
|
| Nomination:
|
Deemox (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
|
For Votes: 10.5
|
Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug – Preceding unsigned comment added by Deemox (talk • contribs)
For. Not many people will agree, but this truly is a piece of art. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 22:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Doug. ~SirTurb0-Sunrise GUNVFH x6UOTMWOTMWOTYTalk 22:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Doug. Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug; Doug, Doug Doug, Doug, Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug. ❄️SystemPhantom, with a 🍉watermelon for you! (talk)❄️ 08:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Douglas AtomicAnon (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Doug Doug Doug Doug DOUGG!! TheLitThing (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC) TheLitThing (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
helloo, Douglas Douglas Doug Doug Doug DOUG Doug Doug Doug Doug DOUG doug doug Doug. Gamma Here, friend, have some meth. 03:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Half for. I did not laugh or smirk, but I figure it is because I am more jaded about these kinds of articles. New readers might find it more amusing. ~GoatLordServa/ent talk 11:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
For. This is funny, haven't featured one of these in a while ー Preceding signed comment added by Squaw Dee (owns uncyclopedia • talk • contribs) 03:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
For. doug. Not Mike (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC) Not Mike (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
For. I rate this D for Douglath. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 19:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
|
Against Votes: 6.5
|
Doug. Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug, Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug. --Doug Doug doug doug DOUG DOUG DouG 23:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Doug I love this as an homage to the fantastic book, but at the same time... this is just word for word the literal book. MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 01:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Against. Mr. George / talk 08:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Parakeet. This is essentially just the parakeet article but with DougDoug instead of parakeets.  20:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Against. Smh. MrX blow me 15:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Against. GlitchyZorua 🎩🦊 (give floofy hug) 20:10, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Against. think about the amount of effort that gets put into these nonsense articles (or the lack thereof.) 174.218.82.67 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
Comment. Doug Doug Doug Doug Doug fingers Doug Dougdeemox 12:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC) deemox 12:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. I did not realize this was going to be so controversial. I kind of just nom my articles as an alternative to pee review as that doesn't really seem to have anyone actually using it. This one is very funny though. deemox 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC) deemox 17:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Pee Review and VFH are very different. VFH is where they go after reaching "near perfect" status. Pee Review is for articles that need help, and would not be worthy of VFH (think ICU victims, short articles, boring articles, articles with niche humor, etc etc etc). As Pee Review is currently a desolate empty hell-scape, feel free to just ping people and
force ask them to help you out with an impromptu review or just for assistance. This article is totally ok, just not original/unique/special enough to stand out from its predecessors. VFH is not a replacement for Pee Review, they are literal polar opposites MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 17:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. that would, in fact, make sense. also, this article is really just a shitpost.deemox 19:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- well, an enjoyable shitpost then! :3 brings back memories of a better time...
MKyap!Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl 20:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
- Haven't read the book and not going to just so I can understand the article. The humour should be obvious for a general reader in my opinoin. Also, an article with just one word or letter has been done many times, so if you do it, it's a good idea to make it special/exceptional. This could be a great article if a little more though went into how to make it exceptional, and how to make the joke clear to people who don't feel like researching why it is funny. ShabiDOO 13:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- For the record, I appreciate the genius of Sir DougDoug Scott Wreden’s masterpiece, but this is not a featured article way to honor it. I am working on an article about a similar masterpiece. MrX blow me
16:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
|
See also