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_reviewsAs 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.
_________________
Napero wrote:
the dismal stench of The Chicken Bone Gallows on the Plains of Mediocre Desolation was unleashed upon the unsuspecting world by the unholy rusty lawnmower molester horde that is Satan's Prenuptial Charcuterie from the endless field of tombs that is Butthill, Alabama