Review Criteria


Marks out of 100.

For attractions/museums…

Exhibits How significant, rare or amazing are the items on show? Are some/many of the artefacts unique?
Display How well are they displayed? Is there space around them or are they crammed together. Does the exhibition/display explain the story well? Does it give you a sense of being there? Does it set the scene? Are exhibits displayed logically (eg. chronologically) Does it have charisma?
Tech Is the signage good? Is it thorough/detailed? Are there adequate translations. Do they have audio or tablet guides? Are displays well lit? Are artefacts well lit? Some museums go overboard with mood lighting which might look dramatic, but is useless if you can’t see what you want to see. Is there too much glare from exhibits behind glass? Is the museum making use of anti-reflective glass (aka “museum glass”)?  Are they photo-friendly? (My pet hate. ‘No flash’ is ok for delicate subjects. But in the 21st century, ‘no photography’ is not!) Are the exhibits accessible? 
Value Free is lovely, but if they charge, is it worth it? Especially for a family. If it IS free, is it worth the journey?


To Review or not to Review

My general rule of thumb is that I’ll write up a site or event as a Review if I was there ‘incognito’ or unofficially, and if I was there fairly recently. If I visited as a guest of the site itself or as a guest of the local tourist office, then I may write it as a straightforward post. It’s not a hard & fast rule, I can think of several posts & reviews that break the rule. So think of it as more of a ‘tendency’ than a ‘rule’!