Simply put, the review fails to meet site standards. The rules are available, so please read them.

It seems like you don't have much context for your disorder. OCD doesn't automatically mean attention to detail. A young woman with it gradually ate a large portion of the clay-and-straw wall of her house over the course of several months, and she nearly dead from various parasite infections and obstructed bowels. So there ya go.

Notes in spoiler.

Could I please have some help with my review?

It's a mixture of disjointed topics, and is pretty difficult to read. Generally speaking, it's repetitive, plodding, and so disorganized as to be essentially broken. More detailed notes can be given once it's organized.

In the meantime:
Your discussion points are scattered all over, which makes every paragraph confusing. Organize your thoughts about a given topic coherently. Pick a topic for a paragraph, and then gather into that paragraph all the different times you talk about that topic.

Vary your descriptions. Don't just say "heavy" and "brutal" and "very good" over and over. Also, you reference the same Nihility comparison twice in different places, but you're basically making the same point twice. Proofread for that sort of thing. Read it out loud and you'll probably see what I mean pretty quickly.

Hello friends.
I submitted a review a about a week ago and it is still waiting for approval.
Why is it taking so long? Is sonething amiss on my review?
Thanks in advance.

We are understaffed. Either way, there is no promise that submissions will be dealt with quickly. It might take up to several weeks.

Needs some help to be accepted



Here's another one . . .

Just had a review rejected and there was no reason given, or at least nothing specific.

Luvers666: Post your draft here, then. That's the point of this thread...

Putrevomitory: As clarified in the rejection messages, your grammar and syntax are all over the place. The word choice is ambitious, but you don't have an acceptable grasp at the nuances of the language to pull it off.

<u>General:</u> (<em>8</em>): On Axel Rudi Pell's fourth album, "<strong><em>Between the Walls,</em></strong>" namesake guitarist - and chief songwriter - must have decided it was the best album he had ever made.

The reason for this unsupported declaration is that every album since that has, structurally, been the same. The formula had progressed in quality over the next two albums with Jeff Soto at the microphone, but the zenith was recognized with the previous album - the first to feature Johnny Gioelli on the mic - "<strong><em>Oceans of Time.</em></strong>"

Beginning here, the formula begins the initial decline, though not in performance. Everyone here plays amicably while there is a much greater balance and consistency not found on prior albums. The decline is revealed as a continual inability to make all tracks equal quality. When the moments are off, they start to ruin the experience of listening to the album in full, as one would believe is the way the band intended.

<u>Music</u> (<em>7</em>): There are only three rockers on this album, continuing what was demonstrated on the previous album, showcasing a slower but darker edge. Where "<i>Oceans of Time</i>" was dreamy and filled with rich atmospheric keys to provide an ethereal backdrop, truly sailing on blissful notes, here the brooding darkness reigns.

"<b>July Morning</b>" is a cover of Uriah Heep's epic, which is far too close to the original. The production and performances all ace the 1971 version, but it fails to build on these technological advances, making it a by the numbers copy.

<u>Lyrics</u> (<em>5</em>): If there is one drawback to the band, it is their overall bland lyrical writing. It very seldom deviates from the topics of mythology, magic and wizardry. The only deviations there are usually are about sex or are odes to music. While there are some clever metaphors scattered throughout, the lyrics are insignificant.

<u>Vocals</u> (<em>10</em>): It is a shame about the lyrics since they limit the amazing voice of Johnny Gioeli. What he is permitted to sing, he really gives life and charisma to, but one cannot stop and think what type of lyrics he would contribute if were permitted. To illustrate; During <b>Voodoo Nights</b>, Johnny's scream just before the final chorus and the one which ends the song are two of the best Metal moments I have ever heard. Or the final vocal melody of <b>The Line</b> or the bridge sections just before the main refrains of <b>Night And Rain</b>

<u>Overall</u> (<em>10</em>): The choice cuts are "<b>Voodoo Nights</b>," "<b>Night and Rain</b>," "<b>The Line</b>," "<b>The Temple of the Holy</b>." Each are incredibly powerful, unique and full of dark melodies that really capture the depressive spirit the album was reaching for.

Despite the criticism of the lyrics, the album is still one of Axel's strongest overall. The fact that the lineup here was the longest tenured does not go unnoticed. The continuity is on full display throughout and it is hard to find a negative point towards any performance. It is highly recommended to at least be heard, to be appreciated.

Luvers666:
OK, just briefly, since I'm no veteran reviewer. Anyone else, feel free to prove me wrong. IMO, it's not too far from being acceptable. First of all, I would drop the scores for different aspects of the album. Because your goal is not primarily to convey "how good" the record is, but rather "what it's like". And the music should be the core aspect of your writing: you are going on quite a lot about lyrics, but fail to describe what the key features of the music are and how does it sound like.

Also, some descriptions you use are vague. To illustrate:


OK, what I get from this is that they are quite depressive and melodic ("unique" and "powerful" don't say much). What makes them unique and powerful? Are they slow-paced, Sabbath-influenced, do they have some orchestrations, a wonderful solo, some unexpected moments? I don't know. And I actually don't, because I don't know this record. So, be more descriptive rather than openly judgemental. Your opinion is better conveyed through how you describe the music rather than a score you give the record on a 1 to 10 scale.

This formatting turns your review into a checklist. Just write about all of your topics properly. Don't just turn these sections into paragraphs, either, because that's essentially just the same. It's a clunky way to organize a review, and has no narrative flow whatsoever.

I recommend reading the rules (at the top of Review Discussion) and rewriting according to what you find there.

I have three reviews waiting in the queue, and these have been sitting there since my Piece of Mind and Chinatown reviews got accepted. I understand this Secret Satan thing is the rage now, but please don't let us non-competitors sit out in the cold.

Reviews for highly popular albums that already have dozens of reviews almost always take more processing time than others. Part of that reason is that they're almost always poor quality or fail to describe the music of the album over that of the band itself, though the more pressing reason is that nobody really wants to read the 24th review of "Powerslave" or the 17th review of "South of Heaven." That includes the moderators that have to judge them.

If you focused less on albums already saturated with reviews, your reviews would be processed faster.

But they'll read the 18th review for Piece of Mind?

There's really no cut and dry "these are the rules" answer to it, but Deri's right, sometimes they just take longer because nobody wants to deal with them. Highly reviewed albums fall victim to this more than others. Complaining about it will not make it move faster.

With the first phrase I agree to an extent. The last section of the sentence could at best require an example (should nuances, of all things, require one), or else there should be no point of posting a draft here.

Think of it like that, a writer armed with good vocabulary is like a carpenter with the right tools--one builds lines; the other furniture. If someone wanted to buy a table, the carpenter would show them a table, not the tools he'd used to make it. Reading your review, it feels as if I were examining a bunch of tools, not a literary product. Keep one thing in mind, no syntax no semantics.

Honestly, I can't stand sitting through reviews like this. That is why I haven't dealt with them yet. Generally I wait for another mod to add their input if it isn't one that I can accept/reject outright. Since I deal with 95% of submissions, waiting for that second opinion might take a few days.

So much for thinking energy and enthusiasm counts as a positive.

It definitely should, but lukewarm post-Ultraboris stream of consciousness rambling is really hard to pull off. Really hard. Plus don't forget what the overarching point of the review is.

I'm not saying it's unacceptable, either.

I'm afraid if I went full Ultraboris I wouldn't be coherent at all. Plus considering how much of his reviews have been deleted....

TrooperEd, what's your hurry? Also, energy and enthusiasm are only problematic if they render you inarticulate.


Hi, I'm the person who took way longer than I should have to point out specifics.

I have to call bullshit on the grammar checker used for the site. When I was writing this sentence for a review:

The tag-team of Phil and Wurzel are just as sterling as ever, especially with their soloing.

It keeps insisting that "their" is grammatically incorrect and that it should be substituted with "they're." No it fucking shouldn't! "They're (they are)" is used to refer to something people are doing in the present tense and involves action. They are going to the store. I'm using the word in a possessive sense, in reference to talents or possession, i.e. "I pissed in their gas-tank."

I like to think English is my first language, but maybe I'm going nuts. Am I going nuts? Is the sentence actually supposed to be "The tag-team of Phil and Wurzel are just as sterling as ever, especially with they're soloing?"

If it makes you feel better, it's not like there's some algorithm that tells us there are x amount of grammar errors or anything that we glance at and just reject if it's over a certain number. I assure you we actually do read each review before judging it so there's no need to worry about something weird like that.

Nice analogy, Antioch. Lol, didn't realize there were specific But 2nd opinion is always appreciated.

It probably does that because of the gerund. Your You're not going nuts.

Hello review-reviewers! I just got my very first review approved, which I'm pretty excited about, but I think that I could learn a lot for future submissions if I could get some notes on what was good and more importantly what was bad about my review. Without further ado, here is my review for Orbit Dualkraut by ZQKMGDZ:

"A diamond in the rough" means "something potentially awesome that has yet to be refined," not unknown. Proper noun capitalization needs proofreading for uniformity, and song title formatting needs attention. Description was fine and I got a good idea of what to expect from the album, but the flow of ideas could be better organized (the goal being nothing out of place, and everything phrased unmistakably).

However, this is a good example of acceptability, and anyone who's gotten theirs rejected should look right here for comparison. Obviously, this is not a particularly complex review. It's to the point and plainly put, and preserves a casual, descriptive character.

Thanks for the critique grave wyrm! I'll be keeping your note in mind for my next review.

Just an update, as I happen to know the band. They're a bunch of seasoned musicians, one of whom has very recently filed a report identifying himself. He mentioned your review and seemed, albeit implicitly, quite content about the fact that his album was reviewed - Read the underlined as the review.
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/view/id/585950
Personally, I'm not a fan of the review, but it's a start. I just thought that the fact that it was read (and in some sense approved) by the songwriter might boost your confidence. So, good luck.

Same here. It's a good example of meeting the passable standards. I definitely recommend that the author spend time on personal touches that make it more interesting to read, and (more importantly) more interesting to write.

Wow, thanks for letting me know about that Antioch. It's very cool that the band read my review, and it is definitely going to encourage me to do a lot more quality control on future reviews. I'll definitely stand behind my words in that review, but if I knew that the band would actually read it maybe I would have taken an extra day to work on it.

Follow up question: do you think that longer or shorter reviews are better? Personally I like shorter reviews, because I feel that it's better to express your thoughts in as few words as possible.

Well said. The moment you start writing for the band is the moment your opinion/review becomes worthless.


Conciseness has its merits, but the goodness of a review has very little to do with its length. Neither is every short review succinct, nor can every long one be kept interesting. Others here, better-versed in such matters, can help you more - Mr. Wyrm for one. Be well-informed - that's the best advice I could give.

So after getting my last review brutally rejected by Diamhea i decided to learn from my mistakes and post my filthy excuse of writing before actually submitting it. This is my review on Ghost Bath's album "Moonlover". Please be strict nd tell me how can i improve it :

As far as it seems there have been a lot of creative attempts to mix black metal with post rock and shoegaze, during the past few years. Occasionally this experiment was deemed successful with bands like Deafheaven and Harakiri for the Sky. And there we have Ghost Bath who seem to give an exact opposite view and impression by simply being really horrible.


It can be easily admitted that the band is highly influenced by Deafheaven- someone could even say that they tend to be borderline fan boys to their black metal/post rock compatriots. The album depends on the distorted guitars- set on minor scales-, intense blast-beats that slap the listener relentlessly and a somehow pitched production to create its atmosphere. Sounds good on paper right? Sadly the group fails to deliver this simple task and this happens due to their inability to produce a single good riff or melody! Their guitar themes are mostly composed of emotionless "happy- but- sad- at the same time" riffs, which re getting dragged down for too long. The artists appear to be really ignorant of what we call "minimalism" in black metal; you do not just repeat the same thing over and over until you run out of appetite. The phrase or the melody must embrace the listener, not make him hapless. As for the drums hey prove my previous point by having no variety, except for like one or two moments and when they do that they end up sounding unmatchable to the whole song. How can someone appreciate this kind of work if the only thing that is leaked from it, is the figure of a bored artist who did not spend any effort on making its release sound like his identity?


Moving on a word can be spared for the lyrics… oops sorry you are simply unlucky because there are no lyrics on this release. This goes hand in hand with the vocals. Even if there were lyrics we could not hear them at all thanks to the endless “Whoo!” , screaming of the singer. I guess they wanted to make their vocals a bit more suicidal alas all I see is lack of creativity and inspiration to make something both good and different. The only thing that can be put on the positive side of this album is the amazing work put by the producer who buried the singer underneath numerous layers of distortion making him at least affordable for the most part.

With the heavy parts of the album having been so bad at least the more melodic and depressive should at least make us feel this…thing that they want us to feel. For once again the group does not live up to the fan’s expectations. Some sad chords who go from nowhere to nowhere and do not add anything to the whole structure of the song. Not only that the tracks follow the same path every time. A harsh part followed by a break and then a dull ending played on a piano or a clean guitar. As stated above this does not give anything special to this release except boredom.


What else can be claimed or said about this failed attempt? This is just not good at all, without a single highlight. If we had not already heard the same album by many other bands, and on some instances done better, it would be less boring. For now it is just Deafheaven with stupid song titles and even more stupid vocals. And pardon me but making awful, gimmicky attempts to gather fame and a “kvlt” aesthetic around you, weather it could be the moronic rumor that your band is from China or the extensive bad use of Google translate on your line-up, tells a lot about how serious you are. I hope that Ghost Bath will eventually mature, sit down and decide to write some good music, because this is just bad.

Seems acceptable.

So my Bomber review was rejected again. The first time it was rejected because it was seen as a "track-by-track" review, which it really wasn't. and now it was rejected for "too much rambling, poor sentence structure (what?) and not enough content on the music."

Here's the fucking problem, ITS MOTORHEAD! There's only one sentence you can say about it. "It's Motorhead, it's rock & roll." You can't really say anything else without going into a track-by-track review (and it can be argued this is a hurdle with reviewing classic heavy metal in general). You can't ramble on about textures and art like you could say, Hvis Lyset Tar Oss. I actually deleted a couple sentences and lines about certain tracks on the album so it wouldn't look like a track by track review, and the best thing I could come up with in its place was the fourth paragaph:

I'm a huge Motorhead fan, but I gotta level with you reader, I do not get this album's acclaim. When I first heard it back in 2005 it sounded very generic to me then, and it sounds generic as hell to me now. There's a reason this isn't as discussed as Overkill or Ace of Spades, and it's the same reason Motorhead barely touched any of it live: It's not that good.

Which is not to say the whole thing is a snorefest. Dead Men Tell No Tales, Stone Dead Forever, and of course, the fantastic title track are all classics of metal. Though I must say as a personal preference, I never listen to the studio version. Fadeouts are always shit and the studio version actually makes you get kind of tired of that killer riff. No Sleep Til Hammersmith indeed. But in any case, either one of these three songs could have made the Overkill (or Ace of Spades) album and been a fine replacement for the snorefest that was Metropolis (or Dance?).

But the rest? Well, Lemmy remarked on how Jimmy Miller's heroin addiction was fucking everything up on this album during recording and it definitely shows. Sweet Revenge is an example of this. This was before Motorhead figured out to play slow like champs, this wouldn't be their first blunder in that department either (see:Metropolis). Sharpshooter would be a great song if not for that lame underdeveloped intro riff, which makes you want to hit the skip button within seconds. Which is a shame because the rest of the song is solid and that riff when shown in the proper context of the song works quite well. Poison sucks, just clunky from beginning to end. The entire thing really just reeks of underdeveloped ideas, and "should have kept to Overkill tour on the road til 1980." The thing about Motorhead is when they're subpar, there's nothing inherently awful about it, but it is very generic. Incidentally Over The Top, a B-side, didn't make the album and not only was it better than most of the tracks here, but it would go on to be a live staple. Go figure.

I will say that the lineup or Clarke/Kilmister/Taylor did have a synergy and a chemistry which has never quite been duplicated since. In no way does that declare anything about Motorhead's quality post that lineup (Another Perfect Day easily beats this), but there is a special sonic personality here. You could almost hear where punks mistook this as one of their own, as opposed to say, Bastards. That's a solid titanium metal album and there ain't no claiming otherwise. Which isn't to say Bomber is the most punk sounding album of the original lineup, either.

In conclusion, what a waste of awesome cover art. If there were a list of "weak albums with awesome cover art," this would have to be #1.

Recommended tracks:
Dead Men Tell No Tales


I give up. I feel like a mod needs to write the goddamn thing themselves for it to be acceptable. Hell I feel like the two mods that rejected it almost contradict each other.

This is the poor sentence structure referred to.



Probably a good idea, your reviews kinda suck.

Go piss on an electric generator you sad sack of cunt.

Now that you said that, they'll accept all your reviews without question!

And now that you've said that, everyone will stop being an asshole! That's not what I was asking for dick. I only complained about one of my recent reviews getting rejected, not all of them. Telling me to stop writing altogether was completely unnecessary. I give back what's put out.