Talk:Review guideline: Difference between revisions

The current structure uses categories instead of trying to get the reviewer to write concrete points. Compare the good/bad points structure or the common reasoning and writing tool, the outline: The question "is this anime good or bad and what do i rate it" or "are the fight scenes good" are answered by answering simpler questions such as "did the story contradict itself often?" or "did the fight seem serious and real enough" and so on. Actually, the average reviewer watches the anime first and then tries to explain or justify their reaction. Also every question is separated into so many smaller questions that mostly are ignored. So instead of "did the fight seem real enough" the reviewer writes and leaves in this structure: "the fights seemed serious."  

1. The fight seemed serious +3

     a. Every impact was beautifully rendered