I'd like to point out that, although your prose reads easily and with considerable clarity, I noticed an over-dependence on the "to be" verb. As an example, consider your first sentence:
The purpose of this article is to present a compelling argument for voting this article to the front page
I would suggest your use of the verb "is" has muddied the waters here. You have projected your own purposes onto these hapless words and then deluded yourself into thinking they owned the purpose of gaining access to K5's front page.
Each of this article's merits will be stated and then discussed, together with any reasonable objections
But, in fact, only one objection was handled, leaving a host of reasonable objects as a lump under the rug, apparently swept there before you even began writing.
However, by the end of the article, the reader will be fully convinced of the article's worth...
True. I don't dispute this point.
The overall presentation and language is objective, calm, and neutral
I must object to your characterization of your writing as neutral. You clearly come to us with a hidden assumption that your article merits attention. I only point this out to make clear your beginning premise, which you try to hide here.
The author clearly possesses a depth of expertise in the subject matter ...
Here, links should have been provided that demonstrated the author's purported expertise. Although we can accept your word on this as friends and fellow K5'ers, a professionally written article would have provided the necessary supporting material.
The author presents a fair and balanced perspective on the issue...
On the contrary, the article speaks overwhelmingly from the perspective of the author, and barely even mentions the reader(s)' potentially differing perspective.
Admittedly, one might object, claiming that this article is in fact about nothing at all.
At this point, you create a straw man to tear down. The article appears to have a very definite subject - namely, itself. This whole paragraph merely attempts to distract the reader from its other glaring weaknesses that I have enumerated here.
Rather than rehashing a weak, tired argument on a topic that has been discussed more than is probably healthy, this article modestly yet effectively presents a strong argument on a topic that is fresh and unexplored
Here, the article violates its promise of clarity by introducing shocking wordiness and weak grammar, just when we expected it to shine in all its nihilistic glory. And in fact, its self-absorbed soliloquy represents nothing new at all here on K5.
Despite these problems, I am still voting this story to the front page. I disagree with its conclusion, but it's sure to generate some interesting discussion.
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees