This makes me cringe in embarrassment as I happen to qualify as a collaborator after having only spent a few months on the J-R Fuse/Cant team. Still, I was wondering if there wasn't some way that collabs, admins, and honorary reviewers could recognize a serious, legit contributor of quality reviews (like Jazny or Psychedelic Paul and the like) and possibly "vote" or "nominate" these esteemed, upstanding members into the more elevated echelons of PA? (E.g. what does it mean to be a "honorary reviewer" and how does one gain such a title?) Not only would it expand the participation of PA members into the "Forbidden Zones" but it might generate a few more recruitments onto PA teams--where there seems to be a continuous attrition and starvation for new blood.

Drew, your reviews are excellent, and there is no doubt you would have gained at least “Prog Reviewer” status.

In addition to the two you mention in your OP, there is also AlainPP who has submitted some fine reviews.

When I joined the site, after 100 reviews I sent a PM to a then admin, who shall remain nameless, asking him what one had to do to gain entry into the hallowed halls of collabs on the site. A short time after, I was “promoted”, and then got onto the Neo Team. I resigned amid a fairly heated debate about the pointlessness of this site’s obsession with sub-genres and also procedures. It did not go down well, to say the least. 

PA is a hierarchical institution. In many ways, it reminds me of the Civil Service of which I so proudly hail. Too many Chiefs, and etc. Some of the finest contributors here are not part of that hierarchy. Charles, Steve G, José, JD, Kees to name but a few. There are more, and apologies if I have not named you.

My own personal view is that if I were the site owner, or admin on behalf of the site owner, I would do away with that hierarchy, excluding a couple or three admins.

I would also then exclude reviews from the site unless the reviewer had passed basic competency tests which would be determined by admin. In other words, a potential contributor to the site would submit a certain amount of reviews to the site admins, and they could determine the potential contributors ability, or otherwise. An end to the free for all. I would also, by the way, get rid of the ridiculously bureaucratic artist submission and sub-genre team structure we have. Taking an age to add something as basic as Mark Kelly’s Marathon, for just one example, is a nonsense, and does the site immeasurable harm.

In other words, I would get the site to move in terms of reviews, interviews, and etc. to something more akin to Progressive Aspect or DPRP, whilst still retaining the essential archival aspect of the site, because the ease in which a visitor can examine an artist’s page and look at trusted reviewers is a fantastic tool.

Just my ten pennorth worth, and I will probably regret getting involved in the debate, as I do with most these days, positive, intelligent, and harm free debate becoming more and more difficult in the present day social media dominated internet. I live in hope though (for a good debate, as opposed to changes to the site as I propose, which is as unlikely as my singing for Steve Hackett when I take my boy to see him in a fortnight, although I am most definitely free!).

I don't see any problem with how things are done here. But I guess it could just be me. I also believe you can always suggest people to become reviewers to the admins. I certainly wouldn't make things a popularity contest though. I think the admins are good at promoting people they think are positives for the site as is. 

You know I got my eyes on you.....

An honourable well-deserved mention too for some of my favourite prog reviewers, including:- Exit the Lemming; Lazland; Logan; Silly Puppy; & TCat, amongst many others. 

I think that it is a nice feature of PA that one doesn't need to have four or five stars above his avatar to publish reviews here.