No, not really, as that is how I would write them. I honestly don't know how to expect reviews to read, but I just see them as short pieces of prose that people write about their stay. You seem to prefer shorter factual statements, I actually like to know a bit about why they were there (business, to see a concert etc) as it tells me more about them and their expectations, and I like details (and give my own) on other things like a nearby cafe near the hotel. If you look at the trip reports FTers post, there is often far more detail given, so I really don't get why more detail = fake.

The 'largest number of reviews of any hotel in Stockholm' is simply not correct. This one has 552 reviews. The Sheraton (1087 reviews), The Best Western (644 reviews), Hilton (878 reviews), Clarion (823 reviews), Birgir Jal (1118 reviews), Nordic Sea (725 reviews), Rica (744 reviews), Crystal Plaza (557 reviews), etc etc all have more.

Certainly I don't see anything in reviews 8,9,11,12,14,17 or 18 that make me think FAKE without looking at them more closely. In fact, looking more closely at a few of those, some of the people have been to lots of places and posted reviews, not all glowing, others have 'cohesive' trip 'reports' (ie they have reviewed other hotels as part of other trips they have taken (Toronto, Niagara Falls, Ottawa) which is pretty logical and strikes me as 'genuine' behaviour for someone on a trip in Ontario; others have posted about restaurants, activities, etc. as well as the hotel on that trip - again, if you were a hotel employee writing a 'fake' report, would you really write the others?