Overall, the main problem with the review is large parts of written conversationally and with information left out, as if you were speaking in person to someone who already read the comic. You seem to lack an overall conclusion that you're trying to sell your reader on and I think it's resulted in a lack of focus in your writing.
There are quite a few places where, in addition to not actually describing the comic you're reviewing, you instead spend an unhealthy amount of time talking about things that aren't the comic. The most glaring example is the "Downfall" which doesn't even contain the downfall (meaning the moment in time the comic became irredeemable in your eyes).
For the sake of this example, I'm color-coding what you wrote as introduction, talking about something else, reiteration, and actually explaining the problem.
Your review wrote:
|There is a potential narrative pitfall in a lot of fiction, which is "Instead of the seemingly arbitrary sequence of events we've just experienced why didn't X just do Y instead?". 'Y' being something perfectly logical that makes much more sense in real life than what the story put forward. If it was a book, would end the story in under ten pages and if it was a film or TV, in under 5 minutes. Unfortunately, I feel The Werewif fell into this trap.|
The problem and solution can be explained with an unrelated example that did skate perilously close to falling into the same trap but in contrast, left a way out by giving the audience room to come up with rationalize an explanation.
For example, as was often mentioned with the movie X-Men: Days of Future Past, it was a common question as to why not just take Quicksilver with them to Paris and do everything with his super speed instead of leaving him behind? Why not simply just do this?
Days of Future Past - How It Should Have Ended
What I came up with is that based on what I'd seen before of the characters, they got overconfident and figured that now the hard part was over (breaking Magneto out of the Pentagon), just getting into a much less heavily guarded conference room in comparison with all their powers put together would be a snap. Other people might come up with different ideas and admittedly for some people, it might still not work at all. The point being is that the story gave the viewer some implied possibilities from the setup to work with so that they could come up with something that worked for them as to why Quicksilver was left behind.
In the case of this webcomic, however, the one thing I could never shake while reading this is if the lead character could get past the hurdle of telling both his best friend and his potential love interest what happened to him after he was bitten, there's no impediment to his then showing the transformation take place. If anything, he really needed to do that at that point, the logical order of events is muddled as it really should be Show then Tell. Otherwise you end up looking like a lunatic which is exactly what happens via a long, avoidable storytelling detour as a result.
I guess to put it even more simply, if you put the hero of your story in a situation they have to find a solution to, don't have it where the solution is the equivalent to a red button on the wall next to them that they can push straight away to solve it. Put some kind of obstacle in their way so they have to travel a bit and overcome challenges to get there. Or at the very least, some sort of reason you can buy as to why they didn't take the safest, most obvious course of action. I felt this story didn't have that and I could never quite shake that feeling at any point while reading it as a result.
This is panel 384 of 408. As the story was written, there is literally no reason given why he couldn't have shown everyone he needed to convince anytime after it happened.
You have to remember you're not writing a perky article for people who are long-time readers of your blog. You're being helpful in a decidedly unhelpful way for an audience of people who probably found your article on accident while searching for the comic you trashed. If you're not sure about a style, use persuasive essay format
for a rough draft, then transform that
into something that actually sounds like you. It's not that your style of writing is inherently flawed, it's that you're not talking about the things you're supposed to (the comic and what's wrong with the comic) using it.
I don't come away from your review with the idea that you
thought Werewif was a bad comic needing a review. It's a subjective matter whether or not the reader agrees with our reviews, but it's another if it doesn't seem like the author agrees with himself.
All right, some other issues, going from top to bottom.
Defining Flaw: Not everyone is going to know what "the Quicksilver Effect" is, and you shouldn't be jumping from one movie reference to another in the middle of writing what should be a one-sentence summary of what screwed up thing gnawed at you over the course of the entire comic. Maybe just try your version of: "The main source of conflict could be solved in about 5 seconds but persists for over 300 pages."
Rating Summary: Storyline
part kind of rambles but it does explain the problem. Characters
part is all right, though the language you used might be a bit cumbersome (inb4 pot kettle black). Miscellaneous Details
part's description doesn't get across why you gave it two seals; it mostly seems like an observation with some pictures to the left of it. Overall
part makes it sounds like you reviewed this comic for no good reason.
Reading Technical Details: This is very hard to understand and should probably be a complaint under "background" rather than an instructional section.
Background: Only half of one sentence actually applies to the comic. You're supposed to be explaining how you/we found the comic and how you wound up reviewing it, not going on and on about how most genderbending comics are m2f (incidentally, around 9 out of 10 transsexuals are m2f so your complaint about poor variety in fiction probably has nothing to do with The Patriarchy).
Story and Plot: The first sentence is a run-on sentence. The rest is a bit jumbled... you get into some detail in one part, then summarize a ton of stuff, then end with a spoiler warning followed by a vague reference that (again) you're assuming your reader is already familiar with instead of explaining.
Downfall: (already covered)
Art Review: Very short.
Writing Review: Your last 2 paragraphs thoroughly undermine the point in your review existing at all. You basically lead with "This comic isn't bad but it's not good worse than it isn't bad" and end with effectively telling the reader you'll have to agree to disagree if they're not convinced by your article. The rest is usable, though.
Conclusion: This is mostly made up of arguments you should have made earlier. It should probably be one small paragraph and it should drive home that the contrivance of the protagonist not transforming in front of his girlfriend ate at you the entire time you were reading instead of you going overboard to seem open to differing opinion.