Most people are bad at reviewing music because they can't actually explain what makes it good without just listing off random stuff, expecting the reader to care. The first sentence of this review already expects you to have listened to Master of Puppets beforehand, and provides no other context about Metallica's work beyond the meaningless term "extended-form thrash" which could be applied to plenty other bands. The reviewer attempts to describe the production, but gives up before justifying their opinion. I can imagine what "bone dry" metal sounds like, but why is the absence of a significant low end a good thing? Notice how quickly they change subjects: "It all works though," but what are they referring to? Moreover, the reliance on vague adjectives is a crutch. Nobody knows what "scooped guitars" means besides pedal enthusiasts, and saying that a melodic passage is "beautiful" without pointing to a specific phrase, flourish, solo, or anything borders on disingenuous.

The rest of the review, short as it is, doesn't attempt to talk about the music. Instead it suddenly shifts to the lyrical content and acts as though the topics chosen for each song are indicative that it's worth listening to. This phenomenon is one of the worst aspects about music discourse because it treats the reader as an idiot. I can tell that Hetfield will sing about the "corrupt legal system," it's literally on the album cover! All of this is bad but the most insulting part is the last sentence. "Nothing feels like it doesn't need to be there." I want you to read this aloud to yourself a few times and hear how ridiculous and vague it sounds. It's the equivalent of saying everything is in its right place, which is a pointless platitude. Expecting an hour-long album to not drag at any point is a lofty statement to make, and without backing it up you're effectively daring the reader to take your word on it. Pure laziness, and these are the takes that get featured and shown to everyone.