Well, first of all, I'm flattered, Oggman, that you like my reviews, although I consider them as just my own personal style rather than any sort of ideal model. Hypothetically, if I could put together a sort of review Frankenstein, I'd wanna splice together elements from different reviewers, such as Cuddly's geniality, McDuffies' experience, and Serge's wittiness. The main reason my reviews are the most prominent is 'cause I get paid to goof off.
Second, since you requested some feedback on your review from the PM you sent me, here it is. As an aside, I'm kinda amused that I just reviewed a review blog on Friday as a joke, and now I'm reviewing a review again, 'cept this time "fo' realz."
1. Reviewing an (apparently) one-strip webcomic isn't smart, because not only is it an inadequate amount of material, but the creator hasn't gotten a chance to demonstrate any commitment to their project. Every day, some random jackass thinks to themselves, "I'm bored. I'll make a webcomic!", posts two or three strips, then gives up on their project -- and that's without having someone tell them their comic sucks. That's why it's more worthwhile to review webcomics that've already established themselves a bit. The "Comic Pitching" forum has a minimum of 20 strips or pages, for instance, which is a more reasonable amount to go off of. In addition, it's always an option to leave a few sentences of feedback (like Buster did) as opposed to writing a full-blown review.
2. Aside from commenting on the copy-pasting, you didn't try to cover the style or quality of the artwork at all. It's essential for a webcomic review to consider the artwork to an extent, even if the writing's the review's main focus. For instance, your review doesn't mention that the characters lack a neck and pupils, which is an unusual style.
3. Your review doesn't take the creator's intent into consideration, which cause some problems. To elaborate, calling the webcomic things like, "[not] terribly PG-friendly," "frankly disgusting," and "quite crass" ignores the fundamental question: What if the creator made the comic that way on purpose? When reviewing, you have to ask yourself things like, "What's the creator trying to do? Is he/she executing it successfully? And how does their creative decisions affect how potential readers will react to their comic?" You write from the perspective of someone who doesn't like toilet humor, but what about the people who do like toilet humor -- the audience this webcomic's apparently intended for? Your critique of the copy-pasting makes a similar mistake -- you evaluate it has "no inherent purpose," but what if the creator did have a purpose in mind, like timing or a particular dramatic effect? That's a better way of approaching it than just disregarding the technique as merely "filler."
4. You throw in generalities that don't add anything. This line -- "I think slice-of-life comics can be fun reads, but only if they're well-executed" -- is obvious and applies to everything. And this generality -- "stay clear of penis jokes unless you know that you have a reader base, know that your reader base wouldn't mind such content, and know that you can pull off a funny penis joke" -- is wrong. If you've managed to attract an audience that prefers sophisticated humor, suddenly changing to toilet humor would mostly likely just irritate them. And this one -- "and if readers don't like the first comic they have no obligation to stay on your site" -- is only half-right; first impressions are important, sure, but I don't think any one strip or page is that important -- it's more accurate to say that a new reader picks up on various cues and tries to categorize the comic.
5. You basically say, "Your old stuff's better," without going into detail why, and that isn't a good approach. Maybe the creator wanted to experiment and try out a new genre or writing style. I get that you wanted to end the review on a positive note, but at the same time, you're essentially criticizing the creator for taking a risk, when risk-taking should be probably be encouraged instead.
6. Your "site" section's generally pretty good, but I feel like the "png" part's a stretch. Not that many people are on dial-up anymore, and even if they are, the image files are pretty ordinary in file size. Don't feel like you're obligated to be insightful; a review can be however brief or detailed you want it to be.
7. I feel like a lot of your criticism has the gist of, "I don't like it because I don't like toilet humor," but bias is a tricky concept. Admitting no bias is dishonest, because everyone's biased to some extent, but admitting too much bias sort of invalidates your criticism. That's why, when you're reviewing, you need to approach the subject as objectively as possible, doing your best to explain thoroughly why you like or dislike certain things beyond fickle personal preferences. Although, I understand that humor's a particularly subjective subject, and certainly what's hilarious to one person can be boring, stupid, or even offensive to someone else. And speaking of humor, I don't get the inclusion of the "Oscar" part, other than awkwardly trying to balance the negativity of the review with an upbeat joke. But sometimes you just gotta tell it like it is -- being on the receiving end of a negative review sucks, but as an aspiring webcartoonist, that's just something they need to learn how to deal with.
8. The summary list at the end's kinda neat. I haven't seen other reviewers wrap up their reviews that way.
And that's all I got. Does this count as an actual review? I was gonna post another old one today, but I guess this'll do.
"Seems like the only comics that would be good to this person are super action crazy lines, mega poses!"