My post lost all of its links so I'm going to repost it. Hopefully it won't break yet again.
The Webcomic Police by LibertyCabbage and others
Reviewed by Tero
The Webcomic Police is a webcomic reviewing blog maintained by a few different reviewers. Some of them are cartoonists themselves, though the site is not particularly academic or technical, the reviews are kept fairly short and the content is squarely aimed at readers of comics, not writers.
The first thing that immediately jumped out at me is that the site itself is difficult to navigate. The main page shows a listing of the last 10 comics they've reviewed, as well as some subscription links and links to articles with recent comments, but there's a very glaring omission here: There's nothing you can click to just get a big listing of all of the comics they've reviewed. You can search for a particular comic by name if you know exactly what you're looking for, and by using blogger's tagging system you can filter the comics by genre (though this is not accessible from the main page, you have to find a review that has those tags first), and a ratings-based search is available, but in every case you only get 10 results per page and you may have to page through a lot of comics to find what you're looking for. I would definitely recommend setting up a page that contains a listing of all the comics reviewed along with their ratings and a listing of popular tags to use for searching.
The next thing that deserves mention is the theme of the site. The first page has kind of a fun theme, it's set up like a police website, the comments section is called "concerned citizens", bad comics get put on the terror watch list, their links are listed as "fellow crimefighters", and so on. Unfortunately, the theme ends the moment you leave the main page, the concept does not extend to the reviews themselves in any way. This seems like a shame to me, I think you could easily extend this concept to reviewing, for example comics could easily have a "rap sheet", listing their biggest "infractions" (site is hard to navigate, artwork lacks backgrounds, too much cut and paste, etc), and then the final score could be a "sentence" (not guilty, 6 months with time off for good behaviour, 5 years with community service, life in prison with no chance of parole etc). It wouldn't really change things all that much, but it would help make this site feel distinct from other, similar reviewing blogs.
Speaking of which, the style of the reviews is really pretty standard. Most reviews start with a short introduction, then the comic is graded on site design, writing, and art, generally with a few specific examples linking to the comics in question, before a final conclusion and a review score. I was slightly disappointed to see that despite the presence of several cartoonists on the staff, the reviews don't really delve into the technical side of cartooning or offer much inside insight into the cartooning process, but I suppose I can't complain too much because there really aren't many reviewers who get into that, it probably puts off the mainstream audience who doesn't really understand it. The Webcomic Police is definitely a site targeted at the comic reader, not the comic author, so you shouldn't expect the kind of nuanced analysis and constructive criticism you'd see here. What's present is presented clearly and concisely enough that you can quickly grasp their impressions of the comic.
The actual content of reviews is always controversial, simply because opinions will vary, as a reviewer you just have to try to support your point as well as you can so that people can respect your position even when they don't agree with you. Unfortunately, this is where The Webcomic Police most frequently falters. They seem to try to keep the reviews to about the same length regardless of the age of a comic, so while a review of a comic that has only about 30 pages might be able to go into a lot of depth about pacing, writing structure, and character development, reviews for comics that run 200+ pages feel woefully short and often only focus on a single issue rather than giving you a picture of the comic as a whole. There also doesn't really seem to be a ton of objectivity in the reviews, you can generally tell from the first paragraph whether the reviewer likes the comic or not, which then tells you everything you need to know about the rest of the article. If they like the comic, the flaws will be glossed over or dismissed, while if they dislike it, they'll be the only things discussed (and hilariously, they're often the same flaws).
A great example of this in action is the
Twokinds review, which the reviewer labels as Transsexual Pedophilic Furry Porn in one of the most hilarious examples of ridiculous sensationalism you'll find anywhere on the internet. This is the only content of the review, there's no attention given to the plot or anything like that, it's all just about the reviewer's disgust at the mere notion that anyone might find furry characters attractive. In reality, Twokinds is just very typical anime but with furries and there's not really anything even slightly pornographic about it. Then there's the
Djandora review, which has furry nudity right on the front page and a link to a gallery of furry pictures that actually contains a lot of porn, but it's seemingly okay here because it's less popular, the issue of sexualizing furry characters is never even brought up, which leads me to believe the Twokinds article is actually just a clickbait article that isn't intended to be taken seriously.
The issue of narrow focus also extends even to comics where they get it right, like
Sinfest. They correctly point out that Sinfest is a crappy feminist comic full of inconsistent and hypocritical messages that completely fails to make any kind of cogent point. However, what they fail to mention is that this is so infuriating because Sinfest used to be an excellent and legitimately funny comic that managed to be legitimately heartwarming at points despite being totally raw and offensive, which is an essential part of the overall picture. If you compare this TheBadWebcomicsWiki's
entry about Sinfest, there's a lot more nuance and detail to this analysis, where they point out the issues with a lot of specific examples and still find time to discuss what few upsides exist. This is a much better example of how to write a negative article.
Overall, the Webcomic Police basically provides what you'd expect from a reviewing site. It's a decent way to find out about some new comics (though it would be nice if you could find the types of articles you were interested in more easily), but as with most sites you have to take their negative reviews with a grain of salt because sometimes it seems like they're more interested in generating buzz than being objective. I'd definitely recommend setting up that archive page with the list of reviewed comics (or if it actually exists and I somehow didn't find it, make it more obvious), and consider going into a bit more detail when reviewing long-runners.
Bonus review of LibertyCabbage's Video Comic Review Thing:
LC seems to have moved on to posting video reviews of comics, which is definitely an interesting direction that instantly does more to set the reviews apart from others than The Webcomic Police ever did. This review also addresses some of my issues with The Webcomic Police, for starters the review is far longer and more thorough than any of the reviews on the Webcomic Police site, clocking in at about 8.5 minutes, which gives a ton of time to delve into every facet of the comic. I also like that it starts off by drawing a comparison to another comic on a similar theme, as the mark of a qualified reviewer is usually that they can draw relevant comparisons to other works. This relates to what I was saying earlier about The Webcomic Police, where I wished the reviewers would bring in more of their own cartooning knowledge and experience. Even though I haven't read My Problems with Women, LC is able to explain the connection with this comic quite well so it doesn't make the review inaccessible for me, on the contrary it helps the review make a stronger case and feel more complete. LC's forte is definitely when he's doing critical analysis as it's clear he knows the material quite well, the section on anatomy in this review is quite informative and even though the review was for someone else's comic I found it pretty useful.
As for the specific choice of medium, I was against the idea at first, but the more I've thought about it the more I start to see the potential. This first video doesn't really do a lot with the medium, it's basically 6 minutes of LC's face against a white background with a couple cuts to black and one helpful section where he demonstrates posing. However, there's a lot more you could do with a video since you have the ability to combine the content of the review with onscreen images. For example, when discussing a specific comic, as he does several times in the review, the video feed could cut to that comic while he talks about it, so you can instantly see the example without having to look it up yourself (I'm pretty sure that this constitutes fair use). This could also come in really handy when the art is discussed, for example when you discuss the anatomy issues in the comic you could cut from yourself making that pose to an offending example from the comic to quickly highlight the problem.
Overall I think there's potential for an interesting series here but I'd definitely look into more post-production and video editing to really take advantage of what you can do with a video that you can't do with plain text.