It has come to my attention recently that quite a noticeable amount of album reviews by the UG Team (mostly by a particular author, Lou Vickers) have gone through a rather large drop in quality, mainly due to their inclusion of a mini-biography of the artist.

For example (Intermezzo- Michael Angelo Batio):

The "Sound" category consists of four paragraphs, three of which are back story on MAB. The fourth only talks about his style in a very bland way, being universally applicable to any of his albums. Now I do know this is MAB, notorious for his cookie cutter shred albums, but still an album review requires at least a little insight on the album itself.

Another (Proof of Life- Scott Stapp):

Now I'm not familiar with this artist so I can't vouch for his diversity in albums (though I'm sure he can't be worse than MAB when it comes to repetitiveness), but the writing format is still the same, worse even. Four paragraphs of bio and two sentences of vague "Sound" description.

Some more guilty reviews:
Fun on Earth- Roger Taylor

Tres Cabrones- The Melvins (not too bad but still a bit too much of bio)

Now Lou can write a good album review, as demonstrated by some of his earlier work, but recently it's just become unreadable-y bad. I'd rather we nip this in the bud before it starts becoming a regular thing.

Yeah I agree, I was excited to read the Michael angelo Batio one, but it was like 90% biography and then it got confusing. The review said it had a "bland, vanilla sound" to it but then said it contained many "awe inspiring tracks"