Come on man. Yeah, there weren't any descriptors in the parts you bolded (and subsequently cherry-picked for re-use here), but here is the entire review, which you provided in your original post: "Pours a hazy orange color. Thick off-white head. Good retention, amazing lacing. Smells like... I don't even know. Hops, but better than I could imagine hops smelling like. Cigar City beers smell so good. Tastes not quite as good as it smells, but almost. Very floral and citrus like. Lots of grapefruit. Has the power of a DIPA, but feels much more subdued. In a good way, of course. Rich mouthfeel with a good amount of carbonation. My favorite regular IPA. The smell and taste are just too good for the competition." Going back through, I see: "hazy orange color" "thick off-white head" "good retention" "very floral and citrus like" "lots of grapefruit" "rich mouthfeel with a good amount of carbonation" All of those phrases involve specific descriptors of the beer in question. If his review had been *only* the bolded parts, you might have had a point. But it wasn't. So you don't. You're just calling someone out on some arbitrary standard of how they should be reviewing, and I would be annoyed if you did it to me. Edit: it's also rather obnoxious to see someone who has only written full reviews on 44 of the 300+ beers he has rated on this site calling others out for actually writing a full review.