I find that metal-archives is a terrible place for reviews anyways. Two-thirds of the reviews aren't worth reading, period. How helpful is a review from an immature person whose sole purpose for writing the review is to bash a band they already dislike? an over-emphatic fanboy who praises albums and gives it a perfect score each time? or a pseudo-intellectual who thinks their opinion matters more? I only use that site for information about a band and their releases.
It's hard to come by a decent place for reviews, metal-observer seems to be pretty consistent and worthwhile. I usually only read reviews to see others' opinions and for something to read not for recommendations.
Magazines are probably the worst for reviews I find. I could care less about how the drumming sounds like a herd of elephants stampeding through a jungle, or how the album boasts a mish-mash of this, dollops of that, an a array of asorted spices sprinkled on for extra seasoning. Useless, meaingless metaphors and cliches. Fuck if I care!