back to Completed Reviews
Site Name: Wowsicles
Owner: Britney
Reviewed by: Georgina
Reviewed on: 31st August 2009
Site Name
It’s definitely a unique site name and easy to remember, even though I personally don’t like it that much.
Coding and Validation
Your coding has 3 errors and 3 warnings.
In URLs, you must replace & with &. This is the case with your link to Smiley Helper.
Your CSS is valid.
Browser Compatibility & Usability
Your site looks the same in most browsers, and it is navigable and functions in Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Safari, and Opera.
The font size is easy to read and the navigation is clear and easy to see.
Layout
The soft colours in the layout image are very nice. I don’t really like the two images blended together because it looks a bit choppy, seeing as the image of the train doesn’t really fit with the image of the woods.
The effect on the images is nice but the blending doesn’t look very appealing here. I feel that the tagline should also be a bit further from the site name and not so close to the edge of the image.
Content
Instead of being in a drop-down menu, I think the affiliates could be as links, similar to your reviewers.
Owner
All the Cancer information can really be condensed into a single page. All the subpages are unnecessary.
On the “About Me” page, bnds should be bands. Also, I don’t think Arctic-Reviews exists anymore so you can remove that link.
On “Breezy Blew Dymond”:
Aussie’s should be Aussies
grandparent’s should be grandparents’.
Articles
On the “Australian Shepherd Breed Standard” article:
an wonderful should be a wonderful
worker, viciousness should be worker; viciousness
it’s length should be its length
Colours an should be Colours can
merle annd black should be merle and black.
The clicker training article is interesting, but you should go more in depth about the sound used – are there pictures to support this? Personally, I didn’t really understand this article.
On “Dog Agility Training”, on to should be onto.
On the obedience article:
weiners should be wieners
are a universal set should be are a universal set
lay down should be lie down.
On “how to live healthier”, there’s huge should be there are huge.
I know these articles are based on your opinion but the originality one is very short and I don’t find it that interesting. Also, if I am not mistaken, you’ve updated some of the articles aesthetically, but I think it would be a good idea to look through the older articles and maybe add some more or refine the way you’ve written them. Personally, I find it useful to look over old articles as my opinion might have changed, or I have more to add.
I don’t wholly agree with this sentence in your “Com-Com Condition” article:
But more importantly, they website owner doesn’t appreciate themselves or their website as much as they should.
Surely that is big assumption to make? Besides, I don’t think you define CCC properly. Is it complaining about receiving comments, or the quality of comments, or getting no comments? It’s really quite ambiguous until you state so towards the end of the article. Irrelevant comments can be rude. They can be irrelevant and might be expressing hatred at the same time, or teasing the owner. It seems to me that you’re assuming things in this article.
I like the satire in “comment complainers” but I believe some people would be offended by this article because they don’t agree. I think that the sample comment you have provided, though laughable, can be degrading to someone, and perhaps even increase their chances of complaining (and publicly announcing, as you mention), if you will.
While the web standard article is interesting, I would not agree with this:
They usually have layouts with text and brushes. What kind of originality is that?
From a more personal point of view, most of my layouts use text and brushes – are you calling that unoriginal? I have seen many websites with terrific layouts that use text and brushes by means of typography – and that’s something original because you can utilise things in your own creative manner.
Site
The credits and information can go on the one page because they don’t take up much space. The page actually looks incomplete because you state “Firstly, the name issue” – go on to explain the name, and go no further. Perhaps a small history would be appropriate here.
Visitor
You state that everything on these pages is completely made by you – what about the graphics with celebrity images?
Articles are already in their own section so I really don’t see the need to reiterate.
I don’t really like the noise backgrounds. I have seen similar backgrounds on other websites, and I don’t like the grainy quality.
The blank buttons are lovely.
The dotted line set of brushes looks pixelated. The others are okay. It would be nice if they were available as stamps or an imagepack.
Nice variety of bullets. The round ones and the heart ones don’t look as good though. I don’t like the shading on the round ones.
Free layouts would be nice with a live preview.
I don’t think this is necessary to include. Naturally one would enjoy making graphics.
I know celebrity images are illegal to use, I just enjoy making stuff with them.
The actions are quite nice; the fourth and eighth ones aren’t that appealing though.
The Piczo coded layouts could do with a live preview as well.
Some of the textures have a dotted outline and some do not. The bulk of these are okay, but some just appear very hazy and blurry. Also, the first three textures lead to a 404.
You state that your tutorials can’t be found anywhere else when I have seen the permalinks one many times, and I have seen the FTP with Windows one before.
In this tutorial, the brown texture opens as a thumbnail and not as a full image.
The glossy logo tutorial is nice but I don’t find the rectangular shape to be as good as the circle.
There’s nothing on the WordPress themes page; it seems that the images don’t exist.
The text on the banners looks a little pixelated; other than that, the banners look pretty good.
It seems that you still have the default text for the script you’re using on the icons pages. I know you’re using celebrity images again but what turns me off is that most of these celebrities are ones that I usually see quite often, and I usually like to see lesser-known celebrities rather than the same guys and girls all the time. The icons themselves are not bad – I think you could do with some text on a few of them, but the effects are very nice.
Nothing much to say about the MySpace comments.
No images load on the pixels page.
The uncoded layouts are beautiful. I don’t have many complaints about them at all. You should definitely make more graphics in this style.
None of the wallpapers load.
Ask
Nothing much here.
Originality & Creativity
Of course I don’t find your website as original as the last time I reviewed you. You have great articles, but with the inclusion of celebrity images, your website doesn’t seem as original.
On the other hand you do have creative graphics and a wide range of content.
Organisation & Errors
Some of the pages could be better organised, such as those with graphics on them. You also need to fix those issues with the dead images.
Overall Comment
I feel that some parts of your website are more impressing, and other parts don’t seem to be as impressive. I remember being very impressed while doing your first review because you had a lot of original content and many icons. Now you do have a wide range as well, but I believe you can also make non-celebrity graphics. You’ve made some wonderful layouts so I can see you doing something with other images as well.
There were a lot of noticeable errors when I reviewed your website this time so please fix them. I also think that things looked a bit disorganised with the way some graphics were set out on pages – like the textures, and it seems that you can still fix a few things here and there.
Also with the articles, they generally can do with a little refining. I was a bit disappointed seeing your website this time because I didn’t feel it was that original anymore, and it didn’t seem so “mature”, for want of a better word. I understand that your views have changed, and perhaps mine have too, which is why I might have said some unexpected things in this review.
Regardless, you do have an amazing website, but it still needs work.
