From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Vote
|
Score: 10 more cell phone-related crimes
|
| Nominated by:
|
SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|
For: 14
|
- nom & for. won't someone please think of the children!? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- For ~SirTagstit • VFH • NotM • PEEING • CPT • RotM • BFF 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 Bless. looks fine. Could have done better, though 14:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)- For. What is an 'lol'? • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:24, Apr 29
- For. *dos Stacy* —Sir Socky
   (talk) (stalk)  GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- For. per above Mnb'z 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 weak for though I still think this could be better it's featurable as it is. ~Orian57~  ~Talk~  18:01 29 April 2009- For. Because Stacy's a slut anyway. -OptyC Sucks!
 CUN14:30, 30 Apr
- Umm... Yeah That.
 Smokin' Cheddar BBQ: The King of the Triangular Snackfoods 02:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. --Docile hippopotamus 05:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- For. --Dame
  12:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- For Yodel monkey 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- HUAGAGLALALALAJALAHALAHAL Fou-Lu 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Weak for I think the last paragraph is a bit odd, but it got some laughs throughout most of the article. Woody On Fire!
 Talking Woody Stalking Woody 01:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Against: 4
|
- Nah Hasn't really changed since I offered advice, it just doesn't work as is, needs more polishing and an end that isn't confusing and unfunny. Great idea, not so great execution. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
     13:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I like that ending. What would you suggest? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's fairly obvious that the whole thing was confusing and being obvious it isn't funny. Had everyone agreed it was the greatest court decision ever it would have been funnier. Also we get no description of "cell phone prison", so the whole conclusion feels rushed. If that ending was to work the intro at least would have to be very formal so the craziness is exacerbated. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 02:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 Against. It promises more than it delivers. --Romartus 12:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)- Against. Have to agree with the DJ here - I think it needs work, and his reasoning is on the money for me. --UU - natter
 09:55, May 11
- No This is a great idea that falls short due to the execution. Needs alot of sharpening up as far as prose is concerned. mAttlobster. (hello) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
|
| Comments:
|
- Comment: Just wondering, do DJ irrevelent and Romartus ever vote for? 14:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am a fussy reader. Can't speak for DJ but I do vote positive if I think the article is good. --Romartus 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a perfectionist, if an article can be improved then it should be improved before being featured, and recently there have been a few articles that aren't quite there. VFH is all opinion anyway. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 02:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's way cooler to vote against. That way people think you're really smart or something. At least that's why I vote against anyway. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:53, 30 Apr
- I C 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes it needs improving. I almost voted for but not quite. Style
 Guide 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain. I would have voted against, but the line: "Much of the jury, a mostly middle-aged and technologically inept group, were confused as to what was happening" saved it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
