Looking gift horses in the mouth (or, "What do you mean, 2/5?!")

I have received a few comments on the harsh/high standards I set for review.  It's a fair point to raise.  Why be so critical, especially when dealing with modules that have been given away?

People use modules for a variety of reasons.  The most common are time pressure and inexperience.  Less often, a module gets included in a campaign due to the outright superiority of its design.  In the first two cases, a DM looking to the vast array of available modules - especially Third-Party modules - has good reason to go elsewhere.  The time-starved DM knows that trying to find a good module can be extremely time-consuming, while the inexperienced DM might assume that only "the company" really knows what it's doing.  Similarly, someone looking for a real gem might not be prepared to wade through dozens of modules to find a "must-run".

These are the people I'm primarily addressing in a review.  My role as a reviewer is not to pat the designer on the back for getting the work out the door - even though it is hard, and anyone getting a module to print really has done well!  Nor is it to just express gratitude for making the product free or cheap - although such acts are admirably generous.  What I'm trying to do here is to save the time of those who are running short on time and lend advice to those who lack experience.  Less often, I'll happen to turn up something extraordinary and want to call attention to those diamonds in the rough.

With that in hand, my system of ratings should be fairly intuitive.  Here's what I mean by the various ratings out of five:

1. The module needs considerable work to be useful to the DM, and for this reason I recommend passing it by.  This may be due to incompleteness, design flaws, or a combination of the two.  Occasionally a module in this class has good components that deserve attention in their own right (such as the map in Cold Drake Canyon).
2. The module is basically adequate but needs some repairs.  Although it might be fit for purpose to someone with more time or experience than my "target audience", the need to patch it up means that I can't recommend it to an time-starved or inexperienced DM.  Typically a module in this class has some good components and it can be very entertaining in the right hands.
3. Typically this means that the module is functionally complete.  A new DM who reads it carefully or a more experienced DM who is prepared to "wing it" should have no trouble running the scenario.  However, the work is not particularly special and relies on the DM's talents to make for great gaming sessions. More rarely, I might assign this score to a module that requires repairs but also has superior features, such as The Black Ruins.  (Perhaps these need to be "3*/5" in order to readily alert the reader to their special characteristics.)
4. Modules in this class are a cut above the rest.  They are not merely complete, but can be expected to really add something to a campaign that includes them.  Some groups may find that the virtues of the module are not ones that they enjoy (e.g. a particularly dour gathering might not think much of Beer of the Gods), but even in such unhappy cases the scenario is set out in a clear and helpful way.
5. The module is extraordinary in its execution, either because it lays out a scenario that is generally considered difficult to pull off in a compelling and innovative way, or because its components are uniformly excellent.  This is the level at which I recommend inclusion into the campaign even if time and experience permits the DM to use their own material (with all of the advantages that normally brings).