It might be interesting to see what the members here would like to see in future reviews.
The first thing I look for in any loudspeaker review is some mention of its ability to make the distinction between the timbre of different musical instruments as clear as possible.
Secondly, and almost as importantly, I like to see how it compares with known all time reference products, eg Quad electrostatics, BBC LS 3/5, JBL l100 original, KEF LS50, Harbeth P3, Harbeth M40, Revel Ultima Salon, Wilson Sabrina, KEF Blade as well as stuff from the likes of Monitor Audio, ATC, Wharfedale, Magico, Q Acoustics, etc etc.
Unfortunately I rarely see this in reviews.
Instead, the standard review usually goes like this:
A few words about the manufacturer, blah, blah, blah..
A few words about the components, construction, and if your lucky, crossover design.
A couple of generalised lines about the way it plays a few select pieces of music.
One short sentence thrown in discreetly that hints at possible limitations, and/or suggestion for the need of a subwoofer.
Finally, a suggestion of how this particular product should be on everyone's shortlist.
If you are lucky, you might even get thrown in as an afterthought some diagrams of impedance graphs, resonance waterfalls etc.
Basically, a whole load of non committal, non offensive carefully worded deliberately vague sales pitch.
Yes, there are a few exceptions such as Andrew Robinson, Amir at ASR for example who actually dare to put reviewed products into some of kind of comparative context.
For that alone I guess we should be grateful.