This is the first good political satire I've done in what I hope comes to be a long series of such. Being an aethist Libertarian that votes Republican (yes, you read correct), super-religious gay-hating crazies are on my long list of people I strongly dislike, hence this article. —UnführerGuildyRittervonGuildensternenstein 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I, personally, like the humour you have used in your article; this is partly because I empathise with your views on such things, but also, from a purely objective standpoint think that the more subtle humour suits this article far better than a more in-your-face style would. I especially like the quotes that you have used which compliment the satire very well. The only item I would caution against is the very encyclopedic nature of the article. This is not a problem that plagues your article unduly but may lead to people reading and finding it rather too informative for a satire based piece. I, personally, found myself reading what I thought would lead up to a punch-line but ultimately remained informative. I would cite the conclusion to the 'Early history' segment here, my only suggestion would be look for some parts of your article that seem to be crying out for a joke or something to lend itself to the satire (however as I said if you feel more humour is derived from the serious nature in which you are describing an obviously fictional group then such an addition is not required, it is your article after all).
A flexible concept, I can't really level much criticism at it. The only problem I can see is the very abrupt change from serious encyclopedic narrative to personal criticism in the final paragraph, while it is at the end it breaks a tone that was present throughout, it seems slightly unprofessional. I would suggest you try and remain completely consistent in the article, if only to round off the already pleasing satire that you build steadily from the start. This is not to contradict my earlier comments, it is simply a suggestion that if you are going to stick with the very encyclopedic tone that you try to avoid switching out of it.
Prose and formatting:
The prose are absolutely fine, a couple of tiny grammar errors that only an overly pedantic spellchecker with a red pen fetish would be bothered by. The article reads well and the formatting is done intelligently, as is the use of appropriate vocabulary, something which I have grown to appreciate on here.
Really nothing to fault with regard to the images, they compliment what you are saying very well and they all seem necessary, as a suggestion I might say that the leader image (at the bottom) could be moved to earlier in the article just to give a more complete image of the group.
My overall grade of the article
In my opinion a good article that does everything it sets out to do. The only thing that I would urge a second look at is the humour which in my opinion was the only place that your article stumbled slightly, satire is well suited to subtlety, but, in places, could really be made better by a couple of punch-lines which are slightly more obvious. Otherwise a good, well-written article.