Perhaps this is a bit radical of a suggestion, but I propose deleting all four reviews for Fear Factory's "Concrete": http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=3917

All have terrible formatting, shaky English, pretty much zero musical description, not to mention the latest one basically copies the album's additional notes as its first paragraph, making it a bit of an obvious case of partial plagiarism. If a mod decides that one of those is good enough to stay as the only review for the album, I'd be curious to see which one is picked, as they are all so fucking terrible in my opinion.

Now that's just laziness. Not even I sink that low.

Some of that is from wikipedia, too; that's just sad. But I had no idea that album was allegedly recorded in "Blackie Lawless' studio," whatever the hell that means.

1) I didn't even know he had his own studio.
2) I never knew he would let some (at the time) random death metal band (I would never imagine death metal and Blackie Lawless having any connection to begin with) use his studio to record their album.

While we're on the subject, TheSiegeReloaded's Hypocrisy Catch 22 review truly sucks. There's very little actual musical description at work there, and the title and score aren't very consistent with each other.

The new review for Stratovarius' Episode is pretty lousy. His descriptions of the music are pretty vague at best, and his rating is contradictory (he praises half the album as being pretty good, and then says only the instrumental track and an intro riff were any good).

Also, the formatting sucks. How did this slip past the mods?

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=107726#1716 - DawnDeparted

Is the formatting enough justification for removal? The review itself is pretty weak, but the formatting is why I have brought it here.

I was reading through the review page for Graveyard Classics II by Six Feet Under. I think there should definitely be some cleaning up on that page. Just looked like a lot of crap on that page to me.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=21573#850

do we really need such a miniscule review for a release with three other reviews, all of which are more in depth and better written? There is little musical description also.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=154877

The first review looks to be a case of plagiarism...and the review he seems to have plagiarised is the review right below it (the only other review on the page). The user is named ALBIGON.

Looking at it now, his other review seems to have been plagiarised, as well...once again, it's on the same page.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=4028#223530

Compare ALBIGON to Kristenhat666's review. Kristenhat666's review is the third review on the page, right after Lunar_Strain's review.

That new Morbid Angel review by MoonShadeX really, really doesn't stack up against the others that are already on there.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=941

You have to know what Morbid Angel - and specifically that album - sounds like before you read that.

Edit: "already on there."

...already on their what?

OK, I've cleaned everything up until here. Someone had already deleted that Morbid Angel review, but hadn't gone back and gone through the rest...bad, lazy mods!

ALBIGON is ALBIGONE, though he did make me laugh. He copied/pasted a couple of Noktorn's reviews and submitted them while only changing the title..."IS GOOD" for one and "IS A JOKE?" for the other.

God why would someone steal MY shitty reviews.

Only one of them was stolen from you, the other was stolen from Kristenhat666 (and it was even worse than yours.)

This particular review entails a minimal effort concerning musical analysis, as well as being composed in a manner which neglects to pay proper attention to the conventions of English usage and grammar. A glaring example is that the reviewer in-question capitalizes band-names completely (e.g. "SLAYER" or "JUDAS PRIEST"). Furthermore, the usage of exclamation marks is often implemented too much, such as placing two exclamation marks to indicate an exclamatory sentence, rather than simply including one at the conclusion of an exclamation.

Moreover, the spacing and general formatting of the review in-question is lousy and messy, which simply presents the given review in an unfavorable light, which detracts potential readers and/or viewers. Generally speaking, the review reads similar to an ecstatic raving of a middle-aged concertgoer after attending the concert of his all-time favorite musical group. Simply put, the review fails to meet the current standards by which musical reviews are examined and accepted by.

Massacre - From Beyond

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1113#25751

Not at all related to a recent forum debacle, but this view from voivodkicksass is rather bad:

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1492#211308

amazon standards, really.

I always like to see people liking MR, but ugh...the way he puts the "lol" in parentheses at the end...cringe worthy. And he doesn't even capitalize song titles. Really quite lame.

http://www.metal-archives.com/userrevie ... =michinoku

Half of this guy's reviews are really annoyingly formatted, with no spaces between paragraphs making for a long-winded, confusing read. Some are even just one really long paragraph.

For example:
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1#1575
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=52863#1575
http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=2232#1575
etc, etc

It's weird because the other half are perfectly fine.

Heh, I knew that Amorphis was the first band added to the Archives, but I didn't know "Tuonela" was the first album added. A bit odd to christen a metal website with a non-metal album.

The review of Moonsorrow's Suden Uni by PowerMetalGuardian is nuke-worthy, I think.

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=369#612
The over-enthusiasm here itself is quite painful, especially when he talks about the lyrics, with the whole "holy fuck they aren't in English and that means I can't understand them but I didn't expect that!!!!!!!!!!!!!" thing (and he doesn't mention which language they're in) add to this the lack of musical description beyond about four lines, he only names the components of the albums sound instead of fully describing them (also, the riffs are "killer". Not a valid adjective these days, I think.) and his description of the vocals as "raw brutal death metal" is factually incorrect, Moonsorrow's vocal style is simply black metal.

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=190156

The review by "KilluA" is quite short, has little actual musical description (perhaps two or three sentences) and ends up saying that Hellbound is not that great without actually telling us why.

Not so much when you consider all factors.

Has someone stolen Boris' review title???

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=939

I don't think so... You see, UltraBoris' review was submitted after that one.

Anyway, http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=54744

Seriously, how did this one get through?

My guess is that it was 2004 at the time. Just a hunch.

Alright, everything is clean up until this point again. Nuked all of michinoku's wall-of-text reviews, which is a shame, because he was pretty good. Luckily a good chunk of them had good formatting after all.

Hey Byrgan, you should remove the annoying screen-stretcher here before a mod sees it:

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=19469#12347

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=1365#304 The one by Demon_of_the_Fall

Going through some of his reviews, they're not very good. Like this one by him on Carcass's Swansong: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=824#304

Or these two Manowar tidbits: http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=585#304 and http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=589#304

I was trying to make it look like it was going to eat Abominatrix's review. Hehe, I took out that keyboard seizure towards the end, I think that's what was doing it.

While I'm here, I noticed this one the other day. Sometimes I actually like those product reviews where the guy will get nitpicky, except when they say stuff like this:



http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=104336

http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=40176


Very little musical description. The only thing a person would know from reading the review is that they sound like Vomit Remnants. He tells us that the vocals are drums are good, but doesn't describe them at all. No mention of the guitar either.

This review by Taliesin is not the worst, but it is fundementally flawed by referring to Tristitia as an anti-Christian band:

http://metal-archives.com/review.php?id=6119

Tristitia is very obviously a Christian band, not an anti-Christian band. As evidence, note the crosses on their album covers and their logo. Also, lyrics such as from "Crucidiction":

What is going on in Heaven
Laughing angelwitches, a disciple's voice
For the blind one
At the threshold of infamy
The left hand entrance awaits
But a stairway to Heaven may be the answer
For the blind one

And the opening stanzas of "Kiss the Cross" from the "One With Darkness" album:

In the age of the Christ
We must learn to fight
In the name of the Lord
Nail them high for the cause

You pay all your sins
In exchange you feed your needs
Saved by your Christianity
Sacred is your reality

The rest of the band's lyrics follow suit. As a band's base religious philosophy can be very important to their target audience, I suggest that the review be removed.

....you're kidding, right?

Read what you just posted a second time, and then a third. Or, if that still doesn't do the trick, check the rest of the info on their page (hint: members' other involvements--Galvez is the core, but he's far from the only example), or other lyrical selections, or any number of other things.

As for the crosses, Christian/Biblical imagery is a common occurrence/topic in doom metal, even amongst non- or anti-Christian bands (similarly, presence of pagan symbols does not necessarily guarantee anti-Christianity in this realm). Candlemass is an iconic example of this; a more recent but also highly popular example is Reverend Bizarre.

@holyrebels - I think you need to read those lyrics with a bit more scrutiny, the first impression that I got from them is that of a negative take on the subject of discussion. To be fair, if you spoke with some fanatical Roman Church people who have a favorable view of the Inquisition, they'd probably talk this way, but most pro-Christian bands don't overtly glorify violence perpetuated by people in their own church, though certain unblack metal bands may get pretty controversial with their anti-pagan and pro-life rhetoric (Frost Like Ashes for example).

The review seems descriptive enough to me, though it tends to read like a solid 3 pointer with basic, bare bones description.

No, I'm not kidding. This is not an anti-Christian band. You are injecting sarcasm into the lyrics and the band's imagery where there is none. The cross imagery, which is incorporated into their logo, somehow convinces you that this is NOT a pro-Christian band? The lyrics repeatedly asking you to praise the Lord means the opposite? Where am I?

I've owned the first two Tristitia albums since they were new and I've listened to them probably 100 times each; they are in no way anti-Christian.

The other projects of the band members are immaterial to the issue at hand. I'm asking that a factual error regarding "One With Darkness" be corrected.

I think the band is serious in their Christian leanings but are also not afraid to take on the darker history of the faith such as the Inquisition. Burning witches and such makes for good metal.

I do not mean to say that the band is preaching ala a full-blown Christian rock band or the "unblack" bands, but the statement that the band is anti-Christian is false.

Truth be told, I'm not terribly familiar with the band, and I might be wrong about the lyrics, that's pretty much how they jumped out at me on first read. If Tailesin was in error on this point, it might be worthwhile to contact him, assuming that he still visits this website. If it is a factual error, it should only be grounds for nuking if it can't be corrected.

P.S. - All this talk about this band is making me want to check them out now.

Very unusual doom-esque band. Holy Records was pretty famous for weirdness in the mid 90s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9YEIvNQ4ZM

Just to be clear, it isn't a factual error. Positive. However, it's hard to tell whether he thinks the band is influenced by a Norwegian style (dicey, but workable) or is actually Norwegian (which would be a factual error), I suppose.

As of late, I discovered this particular review covering Overkill's full-length album, From the Underground and Below (1997), which neglects to provide a well-composed, organized, and detail analysis concerning the music at-hand. However, I have earlier read that there has been a purge of numerous reviews submitted by the author of the aforementioned review, of which were quite not up-to-par with the current standards by which review submissions are held up to as of now.

To begin, the writing mentioned above fails to adequately delve into any mentioning of specific details, examples, or areas for which the author states that, "[the] album doesn't have quite as many total strange moments as the previous Overkill album".



Furthermore, the said author simply states that, "some songs are total thrash ", for which he simply addresses a few of the tracks with only one adjective, which to me, does not provide a clear insight into how the music sounds, or why the author stands by that given opinion.



However, the second paragraph contains a brief description of the previous assertions (found throughout the provided quotes), yet that paragraph acts as the foundation for the review, which compared to the reviews accepted by today's standards, dims in comparison.

In general, I can understand how this given review might have been accepted, being that it contains a tad bit of actual musical analysis and description. Yet despite those qualities that this review possesses, it simply does not compare to the current standards by which reviews are accepted and submitted at this time. This comparison is glaringly visible through simply perusing through the two latest reviews for this said release, and the first two reviews that were submitted for this modern-day thrash metal outing.