I wanted to verify something before I re-submit this review. I write for Dead Rhetoric and I've had some reviews where each song happens to be mentioned throughout the review and some that don't, just varies, but I don't do a line by line song analysis which I know is against the rules. Recently I had a review rejected for this and edit suggestions made. I can make the edits, but I'm not sure if I should still link the review to Dead Rhetoric to show it's not plagiarized or if I should make note that it was originally posted there, but some edits were made for Metallum?

I don't fully agree with the idea that this was rejected for mentioning each song since it wasn't line by line or even a detailed analysis of each song, but clearly a mod did, so if I want the review up, I'll do the edits.

Link to the review for reference.

Since I'm the one who rejected it, I suppose I'd also better answer. I think I outlined a few reasons for avoiding track-by-track in the rejection message, which remain the most important ones. Just to recap: boring, unnecessary, "spoilers", doesn't give a great overall impression of the album. In your case, it certainly wasn't the worst example of writing about every track, and there was some substance behind most of the things you mentioned. However, it still feels a bit like reading, "And then there's this track, and this one, oh and another one." Feels a bit forced, in other words. And it goes over 2 whole paragraphs, too.

You are clearly a good writer and have lots of experience writing on metal, so it makes the analysis very simplistic, in this review making your comments feel like a slalom through every song, where you only complete the course if each one is mentioned by name. I'd suggest you go for all the important points in the main, and mention the songs when you need to. Especially since these are among your first reviews on MA, this kind of thing is worth pointing out now, and hopefully will save any confusion later. In case anything about the rules for reviews is unclear, you can view them more completely at:
https://www.metal-archives.com/content/ ... ab_reviews

As far as linking to other sites or citing a print publication that the review was in, it would be better to do that anyway, both to avoid any accusations of plagiarism and to (I guess) promote the source better. You can make a note if you want to show it was a slightly different review, but that's up to you.

Ok, that's mainly what I wanted to confirm since I didn't want it to come off as plagiarism even though it'll be edited so I'll just noted that it the resubmission. Something like "originally rewritten for ___ with edits."

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it!