I'm very concerned by your statement in the Background that you were "doing research into rewriting the reviews for existing gender-bender comics." Is this review part of your strange conviction we need to "detoxify our brand"?
"Defining Flaw" tells me nothing about what was the single worst aspect of this comic and is too long. Most comics have characters who make bad decisions; you need to explain why the badness of this decision ruined the comic, and do so more tersely. The bit at the top of the review is supposed to be a summary overview of what the reader is about to get details on. You don't elaborate on things there or support things there; you do those things in the body of the review. You have a very conversational style of writing, which you might be able to make work in the body of the review, but the summaries needs to be summaries. They're not a place to ease into making a point.
"Storyline" summary: Could be shorter, but mostly okay. The second sentence ends with "and only as much as they encounter which is really all that is needed" which is... eh... a bit of a ramble? I can tell what you mean but it doesn't sound natural to me as language. Part of this could be in the Downfall.
"Characters" summary: "overly dominated by their predominant" is a little redundant. Otherwise fine.
"Overall" summary: The writing itself is fine, but the tone of what you wrote makes it seem like you didn't really want to review the comic. You're not putting a review for it on the Almost Good But Not Quite And That's Okay I Guess But Here's What's Wrong Webcomics Wiki. (The AGBNQATOIGBHWWWW are a bunch of dicks anyways.) You don't have to be insulting, but for you I'd recommend writing this like a more personalized version of a thesis statement where you say why this comic wound up getting reviews in spite of being "better than the sum of its parts." Maybe start with how it disappointed you or get into the hopes you had that got dashed, then point out why you had hopes in the first place, instead of talking up the comic and then walking that back.
"Story and Plot", "Downfall", and "Writing Review": The review is structured by category not chronology. You've essentially described the comic in a linear conversation that you wrote down, then put your descriptions into these sections in the order these sections appeared. Your "Story and Plot" describes the comic's setup, your "Downfall" picks up describing the story from there and mostly focuses on panel 217, and then your "Writing Review" section covers 217 through the end.
"Story and Plot": You're supposed to summarize and critique the entire story and plot here, not just talk generally about the story's setup. That's why the heading is "Story and Plot" rather than "Comic's Introduction".
"Downfall": I can't actually tell what you're saying the downfall is from reading this (as if I were a BWW guest). It's a definite improvement from the last version in that it mostly focuses on the comic, but it's still kind of all over the place. I know from talking to you here that the downfall for you was the painfully stupid choice of the character to explain things 150 panels apart from when he just demonstrates the transformation. You spent (in order) 2 paragraphs on the navigation (which you should keep but edit down a bit), 5 paragraphs setting up the downfall, 2 paragraphs where you kind of explain the downfall, and then end on a sentence by itself that doesn't summarize anything above it despite beginning with "The point is".
The irony is, you almost completely summarized the downfall in the caption of the image you included off to the right.
This section is supposed to make it clear to the reader, "This is the point I knew this comic was doomed." If you look at other reviews on the site, you'll find the Downfall section is very short most of the time, even in long-winded reviews like mine. The reason being is that it is rare you will be touching on writing/art flaws in the Downfall you won't also be covering (in greater detail) in other sections of the review. To demonstrate this point, I have constructed this Downfall out entirely out of your own sentences, half of which you used elsewhere:
As for the downfall of the story itself, it's panel 217 (Downfall). The main character makes the worst possible choice in trying to solve his problem (Defining Flaw). Linus tells her the truth and that it's really him and his body turns into that of a woman that he's been passing off as his own cousin and this all started after some strange woman in a bar bit him (Downfall). It ends in predictable embarrassment and then it's right back to desperately trying to find a way to get rid of the condition (Writing Review). It's also the point past which things really go off the rails from a storytelling point of view (Writing Review). The equally obvious solution (Downfall)? Show them the transformation first (Downfall). There's nothing stopping the story from jumping from panel 217 to panel 384 where the main character does what he should have done in the first place (Storyline Summary).
That's almost usable as a Downfall (though sentence 3 needs to be punctuated and/or split up, as it borders on being a run-on sentence). I made it out of your own words to make it clear this is an issue of failing to organize your thoughts into the structure you're supposed to be fitting the review to. Also, considering there are 5 references to panel 217 in your review, 3 or which are in this section, you should consider making one of them a link to that panel. You should probably link panel 384 as well.
"Art Review": Amazingly, you wrote this section exactly how you should have. It's entirely usable as-is.
"Writing Review": This is almost unusable as a writing review. There's maybe 2 sentences of critique of the writing in it. Meanwhile you have 8 paragraphs of post-Downfall story and plot summary that should have gone in the section called "Story and Plot".
"Characters": You mostly use this section to explore story elements, so I'd make it a sub-section of Story and Plot rather than its own section after the Writing Review.
"Author Biography": Fine, but the sentence at the end about the website needs to go. It has nothing to do with the authors. You can append it to the link at the end if you want. There's often random trivia in the Links section.
"Conclusion": Again, I find myself very concerned. Do you actually believe we should be reviewing this comic, or did you grab it up so you could softball the review? Because nothing I read prior to your conclusion makes it "a surprise to [me] that [you] actually quite like this one". I liked Parasite Galaxy
by the end of reading it in spite of its flaws
, but I still recognize it's a bad webcomic because of its flaws
. That is not the impression I get from reading what you've written.
Some review sites focus on the positives but highlight the negatives. Some review sites focus on trying to present the illusion of "balance" (because they're non-committal or pretentious). BWW focuses on the negatives but highlights the positives (if any).