I've no wish to victimise anyone, least of all a fellow reviewer knowing that the job is pressured and scarcely lucrative. But a couple of days after I highlighted the case of the reviewer who had lifted a substantial part of an article from other sources, and wrote to the editor of the Malay Mail there's another review by the same writer - and yes, much of this one is plagiarised too.
The article is on p19 of Buzz and is entitled Flamenco Triumph. It is, of course, about the Paco Pena concert (brilliant performance - I was there Tuesday night!) at Dewan Filharmonik.
I'll just give you a couple of examples (although I found many more and can point to at least four different sources - you can check out Paco Pena's own website for some of them). The following (impressive!) sentence was lifted wholesale from a review in the Yale Daily News:
The intensity of the music moved in waves of crescendos and decrescendos as the different melodic motifs seamlessly merged from one to the next.
She lifted the following from a review in The Boston Herald virtually word for word:
His overall presence, from his expressive upper torso to his flirtatious demeanor, was riveting. ... In contrast, Espino was all intensity, from the deep arch in her back to the look of almost pained focus on her face.
Now shouldn't there be a sub-editor to catch this kind of abuse, and shouldn't there be help and support for newbie reviewers so they know where the boundaries are?