Quite a few typos and an attempt at an emoticon.

it is not a NSBM band:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=238485
They have no political agenda. I know this because explained it to me once.

While the NSBM error on its own doesn't warrant deletion, it also sorely lacks content. Basically I know now that it's heavy, not for the faint of heart, and it's Czech. But dammit, I have no clue what it sounds like! Even though it's the first review, it's not worthy of inclusion.

I deleted that after reading the sentence "throws chunks of aggressiveness into your ears."

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 7273#64425

He doesn't even really describe the music. This could be a review of a thrash album, a power metal one, a doom metal one or even a hard rock one. Very vague.

Nuked! I'm calling it.

Does that make you a moderator now? Dude, sweet.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=226394

Shadespawn's review hardly gives any musical explaination, the first 4 parts are just a history lesson and a rant on how bands get more commercial with big labels.
The last one only says how they're becomming a nightwish clone, this could have been about any popular band.

Well Empyreal, since the genre of the band is clearly listed on the bands page in the archives, I didn't feel it necessary to comment on how it is Groove Metal/Metalcore. If you really want me to, I can make it clearer by editing it. What else is wrong with it?

Did you read what I said? I don't mean just stating the genre, I mean talking about the music and describing it better. Your review is very scanty and doesn't have much real content to it.

Sure I did. The only thing I failed to mention was the production. Which was average and not worth mentioning in my opinion.

Now when I read YOUR review on the other hand. It sounds like you are just pissed off at life and needed something to complain about. Consistantly complaining about how bad they are without much substance. I'd go as far as to say it should be yours that is deleted (if any).

"The vocals are just uninspired croaking and shouting, alternated on the last two songs with ear-aching -core whining for maximum annoyance, and the guitars are usually not doing anything even remotely associated with either metal or quality music. Idiotic puke-groove-fest crap, all of it."

"Uninspired croaking and shooting", "-core whining" or "Idiotic puke-groove-fest-crap" is pretty descriptive to me. There are some subjective adjectives, but it still gives you a good idea of how it sounds, as opposed to you:

"It feels as if a member of the band came up with a really cool riff or interlude and then the band rushed to formulate an entire song from it."

Your most descriptive sentence, we understand what you mean, but there's no real context to it. What is a cool riff? How does it sound rushed?

Also, a review should be able to stand on its own, saying "well the genre they play is written on the band's page" is no excuse. You have to say how does it compare to the tag, is it your generic "insert genre here" metal or some really original one with cool and weird ideas? If you think the production is average, you should say it, otherwise we don't know if it is or not, and how it is such, a review is supposed to describe the music, make us want - or not - to listen to the stuff. Just saying that it's all over the place and that there isn't much intensity in the drumming leaves me indifferent. Yeah, Empyreal may be "pissed off at life", but we know why, and from his review, I'm pretty sure I'd be as disgusted.

My review had plenty of description. It was just written in a way that was not pissed off at life, but pissed off at the band in question for making that crap. That part about the interview with the metal world pretty much summed up what the music sounded like, and after that was simply my analysis. It's a three song demo, the review doesn't need to be LONG, just descriptive.

Well then I guess neither of us wrote a review that fits either of those categories. Since our reviews had pretty much an equal length and an equal amount of description. Actually, yours had a little more text, however alot of it was irrelevant. Maybe both of the reviews should be deleted.

On the other hand, that would leave the EP with no reviews. Perhaps we shall leave them both.

Empyreal's review is by far more in-depth and descriptive. All I gathered from your review was that it has chugging guitars and cool riffs, but your review says absolutely nothing of the style. Yes, there is more to say about music styles than what the genre description on the band page can tell you. Empyreal's gave me a decent idea of the music, and definitely gave a good reasoning why nobody should ever listen to it.

Define irrelevant.

I think you're just mad because I said your review wasn't that descriptive. Seriously, it's not like I was attacking you personally. Your review wasn't very good, so what? Just practice more at it.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=624#40130

Blatant trolling. Being called a "kvltfag" and a "kvlt kiddie wanker" for liking an album does not please me in the slightest.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1408#40130

This other one by him is more of a fringe case in that it doesn't insult the reader (aside from apparently lacking common decency, ), but I'm still of the opinion this is little more than an attempt to call Ildjarn names.

Incidentally, that user's career began with a series of positive reviews for Cradle of Filth, wherein he railed with great vigor (and impressive abuse of certain buzzwords) against "haters." He has improved somewhat over the years, to his credit, but you ought to see some of the things he's written that were never accepted.

Anyway, I believe the Darkthrone review is actually closer to being acceptable under this site's standards than the one for Ildjarn. The latter may be more adult in tone and doesn't directly attack the other reviewers, but it doesn't actually contain any descriptive content beyond mentioning the "one note" bit. As such, I see no reasonable argument for its continued inclusion. Initially, I think I may have been inclined to keep the Transilvanian Hunger piece (there's a certain amount of leeway in how uncharitably one is allowed to characterize conflicting opinions), as it was the only sentiment with that degree of negativity for this markedly overreviewed album, but given the existence of newer pieces by IVP and Phillipe, I think it has outlived whatever usefulness it may once have had.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=244037#192182

Barely any musical description. So it's crap because...? The band has commercial success and rarely sings in Finnish?

And giving a big band like Ensiferum a rating as low as 6% just screams 'gimmick to get people to notice me.' I mean really, if that album is only worth 6%, I don't think he's heard really bad music.

It's a she, and she both admits to downloading the album 2 weeks before its official release date "in the review", and also states that she wouldn't like the album even if it was good because Petri wasn't in Norther anymore. There is so much idle crap that literally has no connection to the music, and basically no description at all, that I feel like I'm reading an English as a second language version of a pitchforkdotcom review.

That Ensiferum review was painful. Let's get rid of it, shall we?

Bitching about scoring scales aside, the fact that it openly states that it was a leak review is enough to have it removed.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=9775#20009

Other reviews for the album to making it unnecessary.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=6015#194695

This review is poorly written with quite a few typos ("snair," for example, and how he never uses apostrophes at all) and it doesn't really need to be here with other, better reviews there.

I like "waisting" the best.

I also see "inovative," and "alot" as one word.

Though it's an extremely common error to misinterpret "a lot" as a single word, it nevertheless manages to get on my nerves because it's such a simple mistake so many people seem to be unaware of being wrong in the first place. I also hate reading things like "should of" and the like - common errors writers often call correct seem much more grating than spelling mistakes or improper punctuation.

By all means, a disgustingly poor review. I don't know why it was accepted when the guidelines RIGHT ABOVE THE TEXT BOX specifically say to use a spell checker. If I were a mod (which I'm thankfully not), I would have rejected that posthaste. Not to mention the content itself was below par compared to the decent amount of already posted reviews.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.ph ... 080#194695

-> [...]with being from norway[...]
-> Natterfrost and Co. have amazing musicianship.
-> The riffs on the album sound very thrash influence in the way of slayer.
-> There are two songs here that are being sang in what I think is norweigan.

Did this person actually check this piece for errors?

What's up with my reviews being deleted (2 Limbonic Art reviews are gone)?

Your Drudkh review should go, too. Swan Road may be mediocre, but how can someone not like Blood In Our Wells?

Amorphis - Far From The Sun, by makaze
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=18194#11305

A disgrace of a review. No thought put to it whatsoever. Terrible writing (a bit of engrish and no coherence at all) and no musical description.

Well, they are from Norway, and two songs are in Norwegian. While I don't know much about the album and so can't agree with or challenge the third point, the bit about musicianship is completely subjective (and he has the members correct).

^ spelling errors, grammar errors. I wonder how many are in the entire review.

Oh, that's what you meant. Sorry about that.

The score is no matter, it's the content of the review that helps keep it on the site. I love Drudkh, but I hate those two albums and my reviews explain why.

I'm still trying to get an answer (preferably from the mod who deleted them) as to why my two Limbonic Art reviews were deleted? Was it an encoding issue? I read them myself the day I resubmitted them and they were fine to me - no weird characters or anything.

Thanks for not taking my post too seriously.

Really, your review describes pretty much how I feel about The Swan Road. It just that, in my opinion, Blood In Our Wells has everything that The Swan Road lacks, making it not only a very different album, but also way way better.

the last one by this user has similar flaws.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=244607

Whoever accepted the review by heavens_coffin is obviously a megadeth fanboy.

Doesn't describe the music well, mostly Metallica bashing.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=222321

The review by Artemus_Cain is a waste of space. He starts off by saying that he doesn't like sludge metal, fer chrissakes. His only reference points seem to be Down and Raging Speedhorn, the British hard rock band described in one review as "Corby, Northamptonshire's own Slipknot" and so metal they aren't even included in the database! Surely one needs to know what sludge metal is before one attempts to review an album in the genre?

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=244607

Reading through the Human666 review that fell through the cracks, the thought that comes to my mind is "Somebody listened to the first song and decided to bull shit the rest of the album"

There seem to be two adjectives used to describe the music, "Bad" and "Bland". If I were to describe the review using the same language this reviewer used, I'd have to knock myself over the head with a sledge hammer after downing a fifth of whiskey to lower my brain performance to the sufficient level where I even misspell "United Abominations" and forget random but critical placings of the word "of". Ahh well, here goes:

this reveiw are bad and bland doenst descrieb music at all or anything.

So I exaggerated a bit there, but the point is this review does not seem to describe the music that well and has more than its fair share of annoying typographical errors. There is even more content in the review the user gor did for Motorhead's Hammered: http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=954