A heavy-handed and cruel pruning has been finished, and the thread can be considered cleaned up to this point.

I must stress again that the name of the reviewer and a link to the review are basic requirements for the reports posted here. I will skip any posts that do not have those.

...Even to pages with a single review on them?

Of course. Otherwise the mod looking at it has no idea if that single review is the one being referred to, or if maybe the release had two reviews before and another mod already nuked the nukeworthy one.

http://www.metal-archives.com/userreviews.php?id=62394&nickname=Cochino

90-100% of his reviews can be killed, depending on how harsh you want to be. All of them are short, lacking description and formatted poorly, a few are passable as three-pointers on a generous day, the majority of them is pure waste.

Definite kills:
Celtic Frost - Into the Pandemonium "Not bad, but not that good either" - 68% - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3023#62394
Saint Vitus - Saint Vitus "Saint Vitus" - 97% - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=128#62394
Pungent Stench - Ampeauty "Average in a bad way." - 55% - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=50786#62394
Pungent Stench - Club Mondo Bizarre - For Members Only "A masterpiece" - 100% - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=10892#62394
Macabre - Grim Reality "An often overlooked piece of history" - 90% - http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=54251#62394

Probably more there, too lazy to look now.

Not sure if this makes a review eligible for deletion, but this review for Primordial's Spirit the Earth Aflame has a terrible typo in the title: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1510#2614

Its not a bad review by any means but that typo is cringe-inducing, especially since it's in a one-word title. Is that reason enough for nuking?

Is it just me, or Tzeench's review does nothing but complain about how Darkthrone are not black metal anymore?

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=102351

Dealt with now.

I'm curious how this review by Daru_Jericho was accepted (is 'Originally written for...' regarded as some sort of credential?)
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=241732

it seems to do little more than iterate what is on the band page, and mention the fact that he doesn't like it.

reading that review, I didn't learn anything (if anything, it was misleading with respect to the additional folk instruments), least of all the most stark fact about the band that I discovered when listening to the album myself (their remarkable similarity to fellow Germans In Extremo; the notable dissimilarities of which are also completely overlooked in the review). Nothing is said of their "Folk/Epic/Gothic Metal" classification, such as which elements are or are not present, and in what ways, on this album (which, for a band with seven albums under their belt, is indeed important if that classification is even accurate of any of the other albums, which it isn't of this).

The band Blatant Disarray has one review for each of their releases, both by the same reviewer, who is clearly either in the band or a friend of the band (he only has reviewed those albums and Napalm Death's "Scum" and was the person who added the band). Both reviews are 100%, track-by-track, and are incredibly short, with minimal description of....uh....anything. Links:

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=20776
http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=28759

So what happens now? Wait until a mod sees it and decides to delete it? (Sorry, never posted in the Oven Fodder thread before).

I'm not entirely comfortable posting this here as I'm still so new to the archives and I've only had one review approved myself, but here is a review that could probably use some work on the formatting:

yomama15422 - "This is the poster child for brutal death metal"
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=108202

I don't think this review would look as bad if the paragraphs were more than two sentences long, and there were not nine of said paragraphs. If I'm out of line here please just delete this post if you wish. Thanks

Maybe it's just me, but both of Frenzergy's reviews look like trolling to me, especially after reading his profile.

http://metal-archives.com/userreviews.p ... =Frenzergy

I have never “understood” funeral doom metal in the slightest, maybe because it’s so boring that my mind can’t process the doldrums. In any context Skepticism is commonly regarded as one of the subgenres forefathers, and in any event they still suck like the lot of underground garbage they spawned. Apart from the blatantly false drivel I’ve heard about this band, every song is exactly the same as the first long, boring, and monotonous. “Lead and aether” as interesting as the title sounds is funeral doom at it’s finest, yet if that’s the case then the genre has little to offer metalheads other then keyboard driven songs.

Maybe I lack an understanding of the subgenre as a whole but these are “epics”, and in the context of the songs the time capacity seems irrelevant. “The Organium” is essentially one long drawn out passage of the vocalist whispering, a repetitive “atmospheric” drum beat and keyboard saturation. It’s not bad for two or so minutes but it’s for six, not to mention “The march and the stream” which is ten minutes of whispering and keyboard “ambiance”. The guitar notes are pretty simple as well effectively just used for atmosphere, which the band did rather well during the last few minutes of “The march and the stream”. Although I don’t believe for one second the formula can work during every song!

I genuinely wish I could at least write something good about the songs, well “Forge” reminded me of a funeral procession for a fallen warrior. Yet it’s hard to maintain a positive hope for an album that sounds the same every song. I tell myself the band doesn’t such as much as the songs let on because, bands like Disembowelment play extraordinary funeral doom while Skepticism just flounder around. I can’t really bring myself to say anything else, by “Edges” I was skipping tracks and just listening to other bands. If you like atmosphere then don’t look to Skepticism, unless you like drawn out passages of keyboard layering.

So here I am on “Aether” laughing at how bad the music is, “Transcendence into the peripheral” this is not and woefully so. I can honestly duplicate this entire shitty album by strumming a guitar, playing basic keys, and just one constant drumbeat throughout the songs. This is one of the worst metal albums I have ever heard, and no amount of pseudo-atmosphere can even give it a remotely positive score. Ignore this “creative” force and listen to Disembowelment for quality funeral doom.

Why would someone review Dubya's presidency without any understanding of neoconservative politics, and say that he was a shit president? Well, maybe because he was a shit president. Also, the usual: Every review is biased & genius is in the eye of the beholder. If you think Lead and Aether is objectively good from an unbiased standpoint then write a review detailing how and why. Good luck.

The release date wait is a rule that was put into place after that review was submitted; it was grandfathered in.

Wasn't that rule created soon after the massive barrage of reviews for The Unspoken King by Cryptopsy after it leaked weeks ahead of time?