apr 4

theme: WPR
DAMN! He changed the layout! It used to be this really pornographic image of butt naked usagi with a VERY suggestive ice cream cone. at first I thought it was a microphone, which is worse. ugh. the yellow was horrible too. anyway, on to the current layout.
That image is not right, i can see all these white spots. ugly! and it looks very cut-off. serapallas enchantments or whatever has a really faded ugly button that's been saved too many times. get a new one!
see what Kaolinite is saying? I repeat. Louder, too. you OBVIOUSLY don't know dick about that code, so it makes you look like an IDIOT. who  would want their site reviewed by someone who uses code wrong and tries to look cool? pah.
It's really hard to read the updates. it's so farkin' obvious that you know nothing. you had better have permission to use that fanart in your layout.
good lord. that font, colour and style would only be used by an 11 year old. (not to insult 11 year olds) you suck. your past reviews should be bigger than the queue. ugh..so hideous...
everything shouldn't be that big. why must you tell me twice who reviewed this site? centered text is ugly. hmm. the review isn't actually bad. it could use some more negative points though.
more proof that you know nothing about HTML, your email link does not work. why the back link always out of place?
make the submit form more square. everything is off, looks bad.
ugh, everything is off again in the rules. this is so farkin' UGLY! no premade layouts? look whose talking! stop telling me to center my goddam layout. not every layout needs to look the frikken same! moron. you want sites to be 13 and under, but your site code is 13 and above? hypocrite. I'm certainly not going to change my site for a good review, that's so stupid! and rules should be linked before submit.
your button is huge. should be 88 x 31. it's also ugly.
Overall..*drumroll* this is the WORST site i've EV-no wait, there was that moon kingdom shrine..okay second WORST site i've EVER reviewed! YOU SUCK! either learn some HTML fast or get the hell out of the WPR business.
*reads Kao's review, giggles* right on!!

¤ OH MY GOD!!! DON'T USE CHROMELESS! YOU DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT JAVASCRIPT!!!! Do not try to use scripts you could not code yourself. You may think it makes your site seem sophisticated, but it doesn't since all you did was copy and past the damn script! This splash is useless; verdana and =4.0 browsers are standards. If you have IE then you will have verdana, it is an included .ttf (if you don't know something as simple as that then do not bother making such pointless and horrendous sites). The splash image is unbearable simple and is withing the artistic ability of a five-year old to make. The cropping has not been properly completed either (there are still white outlines). Why is there a stolen 13 and up sign? It's not like anyone under 13, is going to come here (haven't you heard of the internet age policy?). FYI: I came here a few days ago after hearing about the Usagi picture; obviously you changed the layout.
¤ This layout is unbearable. Colours do not match and the text is illegible. Learn asthetics. There is no need to have a horizontal scroller on a pop-up. There is no need to have vast, blank, white on either side of the picture. Learn to use tables and gifs (the background is not well aligned). spaces Once again, you cut and pasted the drop-down menu, another deplorable cut-and-pasted site. This picture looks like stolen fanart. I see no creditation. Well atleast the updates are listed on the main page.
¤ AHH! Too much green, and bright too. Take an art, interior, or web design class. There is no need to use a heavy type weight or to switch between typeface so much. Use one and one only. Wow one whole review. Kuddos. The review is to large for the window, which shows that you do not have liquid content. After reading this it is clear you do not know a tithe about webauthoring, and therefore it is silly for you to review (one blind man leading another). You base soley on precedents which is very disturbing for a critic to do.
¤ Okay, there is one reviewer, yet you past a garrish badge on the layout? If you are the only one, then there is no reason to specify who is reviewing (also then it would just be reviewer, not plural). This bio is cryptic. Everyone is lenient at times when grading and not at other times. How about something relevent. Some capitilzation errors.
¤ The 'submit' form needs to be justifed. This is not a poem for your English class in which you get extre credit for aligning the lines in pretty patterns. Fields need to be larger to ease typing.
¤ Why is everything in the rules justified center? Okay you say that layout is 5 points but later on mention is being out of ten? Content deserves more than a measly five points of weight. It it the most important, integral part of a site. Adequate is spelled wrong. Why do you stiplulate centering so much? It looks horrendous! Do not review if you do not know the basics of the web. Centering was created for titles, not whole text blocks. Text is supposed to be on the left side. It's called protocol (this is based on the fact that the English language flows from left to right). Sites do not have to be designed for kids younger than 13. They are not even allowed to surf alone (don't you know anything about web legislation?). What sort of half-baked grading scheme is this? Make divisions equal (A has an allowence for 10.1 points while a B only has 8?). Stick to a normal seven point or ten point grading scale.
¤ ...There are no links. Only your deplorable button which is not even standard size.
¤ This site has no potential, or at least none that has presented itself to me yet. First learn about the internet before you critique. Afterall you don't want a Burger King employee writing the movie reviews that you read.

Notes: I hate lime green.
Crash Count: 0

I hit the splash page. Okay, it's in a pop-up, and chromeless at that. Ick. Just ick. The "13-up" picture is likely stolen, because most sites that provide rating systems insist upon linking the image.
It's time for me to rant. I HATE when reviewers just pick a random word, put it in front of "reviews", and call it a title. It annoys me to no end, and these sites more often than not turn out to be complete carbon-copoes of one another. If you're going to have a review group, it's a far better idea to have a relevant title.
Isn't the point of chromeless NOT to have a scrollbar and to make things nice and compact? My GOD, please don't tell me Geocities has made a Chromeless option, please.
Yes, it looks THAT much like it was made with a really bad pagebuilder.
My der GOD these subpages are ugly. I know I'm not usually this direct, but they're absolutely hideous, especially paired with the top of the popup.
Everything's off-center on Reviews, and it bothers me.
Wow, this review has a side-scrollbar! I bet it wouldn't if you got rid of that completely pointless chromeless popup!
The paragrpahs in reviews are sorted by category, but the author doesn't indent where he should, making it choppy and annoying as hell to read.
And he bursts into caps FOR NO GOOD REASON! Wow, there are empty sections. No nead to scream about it.
He lists his grading criteria as 'Sometimes lenient, sometimes not.'.
Wow. Now they know your style for sure, there!
Guidelines is hideous. That's all I have to say. Sensible guidelines themselves, horrible layout.

Alignment of paragraphs is your FRIEND!
And, under links, all I see is the animated banner. It's not standard size, the animations are off-center and superfluous, and the only merit I see is that it's not lime green.
Overall? If you're going to use a pagebuilder, at least TRY and align things nicely. This is a prime example of the reason I hate chromeless, and things would be a TON better if you just kept it all in a normal size browser window.
The reviews themselves? The reviews themselves are incredibly lenient, and he has a huge tendancy to focus on the positive aspects of a site and not mention the negative ones. His grammar's not too terrible, even though they're somewhat clumped together, as I mentioned earlier.