I may be jumping the gun here, but does this review even belong on the site? The Bad Webcomics Wiki is about highlighting bad webcomics, if I'm not mistaken. But this review seems to have been written by a fan, focusing on quite a bit of praise to the comic, and giving it almost straight 3/5 scores. Even the Defining Flaw is listed as "I don't think anything major yet", and the Downfall section says, flat out, there is no downfall. So then why is it here? According to this review it's not a "Bad Webcomic", and if it is and written by a fan, isn't that counter-intuitive to what this wiki is all about? I wasn't here for the writing of the review, so maybe something was decided that I just didn't see, so if I'm wrong I'm open to hearing why. But as it stands it feels like, from an outsider's perspective, that this review doesn't belong on the wiki...
That would be me, I wrote it. I put it there on the grounds that Exiern got listed and at that point, it was more or less the same comic. Like the main comic (whose review I rewrote) it's kind of precarious and could topple either way. I ran my changes to the original past everyone a lot in a thread before making changes (I think my major argument was that even though the review was written in 2013, it didn't even mention anything past 2008).
I did/do a lot of work for the people who run Exiern in various ways (which I declared up front) though that came about because of this Wiki, I never even knew it existed before reading the review here and then going and reading it. The Exiern review was my first ever writing here and in retrospect, it's still kind of terrible so I'm working on rewriting it (for starters, I should I should not have to keep apologising for my opinion. It's obviously my opinion, just state it and reasons why).
Anyway, what you're saying has been at the back of my mind since I wrote it, so what do you advise. I was trying to get across that it could go either way (I've seen where it's gone since with the Patreon only stuff, though that's going to be released one day albeit modified with the NSFW stuff removed. I do allude to it in the review).
Oh, I should add there's I think at least 4 pages that wouldn't exist yet if I hadn't paid for them to be made because I thought the 1/month production schedule was too slow. I don't get nor do I want any say in the content.
Look, my view is that both Exiern and Exiern: Dark Reflections should still be listed because I actually still think they're both mediocre (using the term more correctly, as in neither good or bad). The good bits are good but Exiern especially (given it's more than 10 years old and 750 pages plus long) is a spectacular sprawling mess. I also think Dark Reflections is still in that range as well given its tortured production cycle.
I also used precedent, the Wiki does have reviews for mediocre comics as well as flat out bad ones. The two examples I can think of when I did this were "No Need For Bushido" and "Dresden Codak" both of which ended with an Overall 3 review as well (though I know some categories were 2's and 1's).
Anyway, I treat 3's as could tip either way as in could have made greatness but still has marked flaws and that's where I put both Exierns at the moment. On that rationale is why I would argue for both inclusion and the scores they have.
Second Edit: Went and read it for the first time in a while. I didn't specifically mention I help out with the actual making of the comic in the review unlike the Exiern review did I? Oh bloody hell .... I really thought I had.