Talk:Rand Paul

Humour:	8.5	I really like this article. Not just because it's funny, but because of the number of ways you've used to make it funny. It's use of sarcasm and satire it truly brilliant. But I'mjust a tad concerned that you've gone over the top slightly in your attack speeching in some of the later paragraphs. So I'll provide a detailed summary of my views so you understand what I am getting at. Introduction - This is good. I like the introduction a lot, the line "Until 2010, he could refer to himself as being a respectable ophtalmologist before heeding a call to cross the Rubicon in a virtuous attempt to cleanse the putrid, scum-ridden Augean stables: the American Congress." Grabbed my attention of a very nice joke combining a little bit of sarcasm whilst over exaggerating the issue. You've done this throughout your entire introduction to exctly the right degree. Early life - Now this is the first issue of your article, I believe the constant attack on American politicians should be toned down here. Over use of it just gets dull and predictable, in your introduction you did attack politics, but that was fine then because you hadn't overused it by that stage. By this point it's getting too predictable. Try focusing more exactly on the subjects life rather than the general statements. Adulthood: Penetration in the demonic realm - Not this section is a lot better. Less politics and more about the subject, critical for you to make this one successful. Im sorry I can't offer advice to improve this one its up to scrath and pretty damn funny. Victory - Perhaps a little too brief in my humble opinion, but dont expand it if you dont feel its 100% needed. The content there is of a high enough quality, that leaving it as is, would be perfectly fine and not at all harmful to your article. Political beliefs - Again perhaps a little brief, but I'm not concerned majorly about it, so I see no reason for you to be. Perhaps leaving it so brief doesn't cause you to drawl on which can kill humour. Cleansing the place' and Conclusion - I though this was preetty well done, in fact it was very well done, you over exagerated the points here to such an extent that it didn't satire to be funny, it was hilarious enough by itself. A daring but successful move, as it can be sometimes difficult to pull that kind of thing off in a conclusion. Just a little thingy, your profile table seems a little iffy, I won't say much more other than it could be seen as a little random depending on who you ask, I for one think it could be slighly improved.
Concept:	9.5	I'll try and keep it a little but more brief here, you show a very concept of your subject. But as I said in the previous section of this review, your tendancy to include too much politics and not enough on the actual subject of your article has killed it back from its full potential, but still 9.5 I give it, still a very high score.
Prose and formatting:	10	I can't fault you at all in the way you've formatted your article. You use interwiki links, a profile table and the images are neatly placed. Not only this but I like the flow this article has, it goes right into the next section following a relivant order something I find too many articles lack in and too many authors disregard as unimportant and not a priority.
Images:	9	0 You used a variety of images for your article, something again too many authors disregard as unimportant. The images are well formatted as stated earlier, they are well choosen and in the right quantity and quality. I have no issues, except for the captions they hold they need to be better worded in my opinion as they are a little too simple for my linking. But thats just me perhaps.
Miscellaneous:	9	My overall rating out of 10.
Final Score:	46	FEATURE, FEATURE, FEATURE. It has all the right components to it it just needs a little fine tuning to get it perfect. Otherwise let the nomination begin!
Reviewer:	~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)

Mattsnow 00:44, July 13, 2011 (UTC)