There's already been a little discussion on the talk page, but I'm asking if you do review then to avoid the talk until after the review is done as I would prefer you to come at this with no pre-conceived notions.Pup 02:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Just skimmed through this, and it looks like it could be alright. I'll try and review it in the next day or two when I've got a little more time. —UnführerGuildyRittervonGuildensternenstein 00:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I chuckled out loud a few times, which is good. Normally, such an occurrence would call for only a 5-6 in the humor section, though seeing as this is such an interesting idea (at least in my own opinion) I bumped you up a bit. Basically, to make this better, you need more "haha's," simple as that. Unfortunately, I really can't suggest how to do that. When most people get humor scores in the just-below-very-good level, it's because they've either missed obvious comedic opportunities, or because their article is somewhat deficit in the conceptual area--neither applies in your case. I guess you're on your own for this.
This is a really interesting idea. A non-secular Thomas the Tank Engine (nice use of the Biblical name "Isaac") to parody the allegorical pseudo-religious children's fiction of the period (which I guess is pretty much just "Chronicle of Narnia," unless I'm missing something)--I like it. I'm probably a bit more well-versed in the Bible than most (seven years of Sunday school--probably the reason I'm an atheist), so though your section of parallels between Isaac and Christ was a bit too obvious for my liking, it will be just subtle enough for the average reader, which is exactly where you want to be.
Prose and formatting:
Also very good. There were two or three specific spelling/grammar errors I remember seeing ("second world war" should be capitalized, you use "her" instead of "he" in the Denial Station section, and I forget the third one), so fix those. I should also say that I very much like the article formatting up until the last section.
All of the pictures (except the last one) are relevant and fit well together. Though no one by themselves is particularly funny, they all come together and creative a cohesive feel for the article, which is good. One thing I don't particularly like is your use of Thomas pictures for Isaac pictures--that's lazy, and could potentially confuse the reader. Enlist the help of someone like Sonje to chop you a nice picture or two of Isaac. Finally, I don't care much for the Ringo Star picture in the end, but I'll get to that.
This seemingly low score here serves two purposes. The first is to bring down your inflated humor score form earlier in the review. The second has to do with the fact that I utterly detest the article's last section--sorry. I would have mentioned things in the other sections, but since I find the last section deficit in basically all areas, I figured I'd just hold off until now to address the issues I have in-depth. The most obvious problem with this is that it kills the feel and cohesion you had going all throughout the rest of the article--this is bad. Do you really need random mentions of Passion of the Christ and a picture of Ringo Star? Probably not. Instead of what you have now, I would instead suggest you do something along the lines of a section entitled Significance, and talk about how ItTE influenced other great works of allegorical pseudo-religious children's fiction, like Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter. Or something. Anything but what you have now. In short, KILL the last section, and replace it with something better.
Kill the last section, and add more "haha's". Otherwise, this is an incredibly good article. You're obviously newer here, and this is an impressive article from a n00b--keep it up.