Well most of the points have been covered but there are a few I personaly like to see. Good knowledge and history of the band, compared to past albums and other bands who play the same style, some times I like to read a bit about each member of the band, although only in some cases, which brings me the most important part of any review in my opinion, the way it is written. You can have every single little detail about a band, like what they eat for breakfast, but if it is written in plain boring text book form, its nothing but useless information that bores the hell outta me and I'm sure many other people. Descriptive writing is what I'm talking about, use of metaphor's and imagination etc, a prime example of what I mean is a writer named Neil Yeomans, a good friend of mine and an excellent reviewer, he writes for SonicDeath and his album reviews are better than any I have ever read or written myself. His use of imagrey is nothing like I have ever read, and many times after reading his reviews he has got me so intrested in the album that i have to hear it for myself and thus for go and buy it, to see if what he writes is true and most of the time it is. In my opinion that is the key to keeping your readers eyes glued to the review reading it from word to word and every time I have ever read one of Neil's reviews, I have read every word of it which is not often I do that because I'm a "skim reader" I read through the paragraphs very fast looking for intresting points, missing a lot of the boring stuff out.
Thats my opinion of a good review any way.
What do you like to see in one?
This is still the Khanate review yeah? 
