I'll get this tonight (I hope) if not then within 24 hours. --ChiefjusticeDS 14:31, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
OK, I really liked the humour in this one, you have a good grasp of what you want to do with the humour and you execute it generally well. There are a couple of things that I would recommend you take a look at before you do anything else with this one. The first thing that struck me about this article was that while the conversational style is very well realised it does become slightly confused a couple of times, I'd say that this is primarily because you can accidentally start a response in a way that doesn't fit correctly. I'm not going to devote a huge amount of time to discussing that because it is a very small problem, but was simply the first one that I came across. The main thing that bothers me about this article was the conclusion, after the generally pleasing exchanges between the two characters the ending comes very quickly and very suddenly, indeed as I was reaching the end of the evolution section I was wondering how you would finish the article within the next section. It seemed to me that you had the two beliefs to either reconcile or to leave the two characters at odds, you obviously decided to reconcile the two views, and use the joke that one had gotten frogs and God confused, I'm not saying this was incorrect I just felt that it was rather unsatisfying. Permit me to expand, I thought that the two views were so disparate and was rather enjoying the fervour of the main speaking character about "FROG", I mean, you have him saying "When I'm...sacrificing chickens to the FROG sculpture I made" and then "Sometimes He asks me to take my clothes off and dance around for Him", to have him immediately be persuaded to another point of view within 7 short lines seemed somewhat unsatisfactory to me. I understand that there is some pressure to tie up the article in a way that gives the subject closure and I hate to pick holes in the way you have done it, but I feel that I should mention it. My recommendation would be to go back and consider the ending again, the idea that I got was that you don't actually need to reconcile the views of the two characters, not in the conversation at any rate. What I mean by this is that you could try having the respondent in this conversation explain the thing about God and have the FROG worshipper chase him away, only to admit he was wrong afterwards, this way seems far more realistic than a swift realisation that the character is incorrect.
I also quite like your fourth wall breaking moments in the article, though I did notice a very minor problem related to this. The section headings seem to be there only to drive the discussion, which is fair enough, my only gripe is that the extent to which you speak in relation to the section heading is very limited, in the "Reproduction" section you speak about it for about 5 lines before launching into something else, the overall feel that this gave me is that the article is somewhat aimless in its direction, perhaps this was your intention as many conversations are aimless, my suggestion would be that you took another look and try binding any discussion in each section back to the section heading, if only in a minor way.
Some good work here, your concept had me doubtful to begin with but the style really won me over as the article progressed. The tone is good, although the characterisation is a bit patchy in places. What I mean by this is that generally we can tell that the respondent in the conversation (the italicised one) is supposed to be disbelieving and generally acting as the real life response to the main character's ramblings. My feeling was that the respondent's role isn't as constant as could be desirable here, what I mean by this is that at times he makes fun of the main character saying "Hahahaha!!! Priceless! I'm putting that as my Facebook status" and at other times he is wary of offending the other character "Sorry, I don't mean to offend". What I would suggest is that you try to lessen this concern over offence, not so that we lose sight of who the character is, but rather so he is focused on acting as an effective counter-point to the main character. As the score hopefully indicates, this isn't a major problem at all.
Prose and formatting:
Your prose are good and your spelling and grammar is of a good standard. There are a couple of small errors but nothing to be overly concerned about, a quick proofread after you make any changes to the article will likely be enough to sort any existing problems. As far as formatting goes I'd say you might look to either make your existing images a bit bigger or to add another one in as the bottom half of the article feels somewhat bare. Not much else to say on this one, you have done well.
Good work with the images, the only thing I have to say here is that you should consider trying to link all the image captions to the article in some way, currently some of the links are there but are pretty tenuous, try making them a bit more secure. Otherwise there isn't much for me to say here, take a look at the formatting and you will be done on the image front.
My overall grade of the article.
One of the best pieces of work that I have read recently, the article is fast-paced, amusing and enjoyable throughout. There are a couple of problems which I have pulled out of this one, but the changes, bar the complaint about your conclusion, are all pretty minor and should be fixed with very little effort on your part. If you have any questions or comments for me then feel free to leave them on my talk page. Good luck making any changes and well done.