Yomu Reviews Plyasm’s (Initial) Review of Chio-chan no Tsuugakuro

We are back for another review review. This time around, I, Yomu, anime review reviewer, will be taking a look at one of the works published by the author Plyasm. It has been a while since we last reviewed a review, with our previous (and first) review being EdgyAnimeTeen’s review, which can be found here.

Some kind words from our last review:

You are the standard to which all review reviewers aspire towards… years of experience in reviewing reviews… (The review reviews) are of a certain transcendent quality, unmatched by us commoners..” – EdgyAnimeTeen

“This was a good read.” – WeeaBroDerek

…more interesting read than I expected… more constructive than I thought.” – Arsene_Lucifer

“…I enjoyed it.” – Jon Spencer

moustache
Pictured: Yomu the Anime Review Reviewer

It’s now time to conduct another review of a review. As a reminder, this is not to be confused with an actual anime review. This is simply a review of a review, based solely on the review, and not on the anime being reviewed in the review. As always, I try my utmost to conduct an honest and fair review of the review that I will be reviewing, something that all review reviewers strive to do.

With some fresh oil in my typewriter, glasses polished, and a hot cup of tea I am ready to perform yet another review of a review.

I was contacted by this individual after completing my last review review, as you can see here:

request.png

While I don’t appreciate the challenging tone, it left me concerned for this individual, Plyasm. For someone to refer to their archive of published works (blog) as “hell” may be a sign of a troubled writer who lacks confidence in their own words. A review of one of their reviews and some constructive criticism can hopefully send this individual down the right path and reaffirm their sense of self-confidence in writing.

Let’s begin, shall we?

As I delved into the individual’s archive of published works (blog), I discovered that the archive consisted almost solely of first impressions reviews and archive (blog) updates. Perhaps this individual has trouble with commitment, or simply lacks the patience to finish works; and therefore they are unable to review the final product.

plyasm1.png
As you can see, there were plenty of first impressions reviews to choose from.

Undeterred, I chose this first impressions review to review. After all, a review is a review, even if that review is reviewing the introduction of an animated work (anime).

The review is titled: First impressions: Chio-chan no Tsuugakuro (The next Nichijou?!)

First thing I will look at is the grammar of the title. The author chose to only capitalize the first letter of the sentences present in the title. However, due to the capitalization of the names of multiple animated works (anime), the words that begin in lowercase look out of place. The presence of so many capitalized words leads me to think that while the grammar is correct, capitalizing all of the words in the title would have been a more effective way to generate interest and create a consistent title throughout.

The structure of the title is excellent. The author begins with their overall intent by stating upfront that this post is a first impressions review. Next we have the title of the animated work (anime) that will be reviewed. This two part combination is a fantastic display of the basics of titling a review.

However, the author takes this one step further by adding a literary hook to the title. By adding “(The next Nichijou?!)” to the title, the author draws readers in by relating what they will be reviewing to a prominent animated work (anime) that potential readers are more likely to know of. Asking a question in this way leaves potential readers wondering if the animated work (anime) being reviewed is in fact, on par with the animated work called Nichijou.

This title reveals that the author does indeed have commendable attention to the finer details that go into the creation of the title for a review.

The review begins with a tall image depicting various characters, who I imagine are from the animated work that is being reviewed here. The author decided to credit the source of the image in the caption below the image. This shows great humility on the author’s part, and I’d like to believe that the original artist will appreciate this gesture.

plyasm3.png

The review begins by apologizing for the addition of a literary hook in the title. It’s unfortunate, really. After such a rare display of skilled title creation, the author takes a step backwards. Perhaps this individual’s lack of self-confidence is to blame? Regrettable, but we must move on.

I took the liberty to circle a mistake that is common in published reviews in red ink. Run-on sentences are something that can trouble even the finest authors. You will notice that the run-on sentence in question contains four commas – which may be an indication of a run-on sentence. The author may be listing various qualities of the animated work, but the sentence could have ended earlier.

Consider this sentence structure instead:

From overthinking things(and Chio does it a lot), to doing embarassing things, to just hilarious coincidences; this series has got it all. And it’s all in this one episode that we get so much comedy gold.

Notice how the introduction of a semicolon allows the first sentence to comfortably transition from listing qualities of the animated work to a concluding statement? Followed up by a properly structured second, separate sentence? This is how professional sentences should be structured.

I’ll also quickly point out the failure to include proper space before a bracket, as well as the incorrect spelling of the word “embarrassing”.

plyasm4.png

I would also like to point out the author’s lack of vocabulary. While this doesn’t directly affect the points the author is trying to convey, it does slightly tarnish the quality of the written works through repetition. I believe that the author was attempting to make humor of this situation, which was unprofessional, although I can understand the desire to do so.

The author follows up an image with a bold prediction as a caption. Risky, but should the prediction prove true the author may be rewarded with much needed attention by readers in the future.

plyasm5.png

I quite enjoyed the structure and flow of the next paragraph. It is written in both an engaging and educating manner, providing the reader with an excellent idea of the animation in the animated work. The paragraph is even followed up by a tactfully chosen image and witty caption that simulates conversation between two individuals.

From a technical standpoint, there are a few mishaps. I spotted another failure to space properly before a bracketed sentence (at least the author is consistent with this error). The final sentence also could be trimmed down or re-worded in order to flow better.

plyasm6.png

The third paragraph seems rather large at first, however it is within acceptable limits. The average paragraph consists of 5 – 8 sentences, and contains 100 – 200 words. This paragraph consists of 8 sentences, and 187 words. Cutting it close, but the author clearly understands the limitations of a paragraph and intentionally designed this paragraph to fit proper parameters. Masterfully done.

There is another case of the author failing to properly add space before a bracket, but it is important to maintain consistency at this point in the review.

The paragraph flows nicely. I quite enjoyed how the author describes their personal engagement, and the success of the animated work in engaging the audience. Very well written. It’s points like these where the author brings their personal experience into the review that really add value.

I would also like to commend the author for staying consistent with their comparison of this animated work to the animated work Nichijou throughout the entire review. The review succeeds in answering the question posed in the literary hook presented to readers in the title.

plyasm7.png

The review concludes with a distinct rating, statement regarding the author’s enjoyment, and an image that includes a witty caption referencing another animated work.

This final portion of the review is both visually pleasing and functional – drawing attention to the final score provided by the author. Very professional.


Final Impressions & Rating

This was a review that I went into with uncertainty. Would the author’s insecurities show in their writing? I was happy to find that the author managed to publish a fairly well written review. I will now provide my assessment of this review, as well as the rating I believe it has earned.

Lack of confidence in literary hook placed in the title of the review. Repetition and lack of vocabulary displayed in portions of the review. Use of a run-on sentence, minor spelling errors, as well as the failure to properly space before a parenthesis (although the consistency is appreciated).

Well crafted title. The content flows well. The use of images was well done to break up content and provide readers with images from the animated work. Nice use of a bold prediction which may pay off for the author in the future. Well written content describing the animation of the animated work. Expertly written paragraph that makes almost full use of the parameters of a paragraph. Excellent use of personal experience to engage the readers. The author’s rating is distinct to draw readers attention, which is nicely done.

With all of this taken into consideration, Plyasm’s review receives a 7.25 / 10 rating. The author has great potential to write high quality reviews, and has shown some commendable attention to the minor details. A fine author in the making.

My words for the author would be to write with more confidence. A literary hook is nothing to apologize for. Try to pay more attention to the grammar in your writing. You do an excellent job at conveying your opinions and ideas, so some improvement on the technical side will help to bring the overall quality of your work to a more professional level. I also would suggest considering writing some final reviews. They may seem daunting at first, but with more content to write about I feel you may find yourself pleasantly surprised at what you are capable of.

This concludes my review of Plyasm’s review of Chio-chan no Tsuugakuro.

mekakucityseagull

As always, if anyone would like to request my services, please let me know in the comments. I am more than happy to review reviews for up and coming authors, free of charge.

Until next time.
Thanks for reading.

13 thoughts on “Yomu Reviews Plyasm’s (Initial) Review of Chio-chan no Tsuugakuro

  1. Wonderful. Just as good as the original. Seems like Plyasm passed this round with ease. He must have some kind of secret techniques hidden from the rest of us. Hence, why he initiated the challenge.

    I shall await to see who shall be your next target in your review review conquest to be the number 1 review reviewer there is. Reviewing reviews like no one has ever reviewed reviews before.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am one of the lucky few anime review reviewers who managed to break into the industry. Many review reviewers have trouble reviewing reviews and properly reviewing what is required of a professional review in today’s review market.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. While having a summative section at the end is helpful, it’s kind of annoying to read in a paragraph…it would be better off as dotpoints.

    I feel like I’d benefit from your feedback, but I don’t really intend to write more reviews than what I have already because reviews are so ubiquitous…so if (by any chance) you want to review anything on my blog, you should probably pick a non-review post…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You might be right about that, I’ll keep it in mind. Thanks for the feedback!

      Well considering this post reviewed a first impressions review, a non-review isn’t that far off. At an undisclosed time on an undisclosed post, you can expect a review of one of your non-reviews. 🙂

      Like

  3. Pingback: Appreciating the Little Things (Award Post) – The Animanga Spellbook

  4. Woah. It seems I have stumbled upon an interesting review. A review of a review by someone known as a review reviewer.
    I wonder, maybe you could try reviewing a review of a review? Then you could become a review review reviewer? You could review one of your past review reviews and compare it to a present review reviews and see how you have evolved as a review reviewer!
    Interesting stuff, I can probably learn a bit from this as well!

    Like

    1. Secretly I have been hoping that someone I review will counter-post me with a review of my review of their review. It’s bound to happen at some point for sure.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s