I agree with Ingo... work on the stuff that's unreviewed rather than trying to make minor tweaks to stuff that's already been reviewed.
One technique I used was to search the database for authors that you like and review any work of theirs that isn't already reviewed. Since you already know the author does quality work, there's a good chance the scenario will wind up in the Best of AoK. Doing this will improve the quality of the Best of AoK by adding more good scenarios to the list, rather than trying to weed out the ones you don't personally like.
All reviews are slanted to the reviewer's personal tastes, that's a given. So, If Stan does all the reviews, the Best of AoK will be slanted to his tastes. But that doesn't mean Stan's opinion is the "right" opinion. Any one person's opinion is just as valid as any other person's... that's why it's hard for me to understand why Stan would want to go through the Best of list, looking for scenarios that don't fit his taste, and knocking them down.
Just because Stan doesn't like a scen doesn't mean that noone else will like it. If another reviewer thought highly enough of a scenario to put it in the Best of AoK, then there's likely to be a subset of players that will enjoy the scenario.
Just from the responses in this thread, we can deduce that not everyone likes the same type of scenario since the answers to what should be removed vary widely. The Best of AoK will never be the same as your own personal list because the Best of should reflect a wide variety of opinions, while your own list only reflects one opinion.
I guess my point is that you shouldn't assume that your own view is the only view that matters. I definitely appreciate those of you that do reviews and your opinions are valuable, but please, don't go out of your way to "correct" other reviewer's mistakes since it's likely just a difference of opinion, not a "mistake". Sure, if someone scores a scen 4.4 and it's obviously a 2.0 scenario, then voice your opinion, but don't make a big deal if you think the score should be 3.6 and it's at 4.2. Your time would be better spent reviewing new material.
We need to have more great work recognized instead of trying to refine the review of a good to mediocre scenario.
One more comment... Stan - in a recent review, you made the statement that Fixed Force scenarios can never be perfectly balanced because the enemy can never outnumber your own forces. I strongly disagree with that statement. Your statement is only correct if both sides have the same unit type with the same upgrades. AoK has lots of unit types and lots of upgrades... it's pretty easy to set up an outnumbered situation where the side with more troops is at a disadvantage. Giving the player healing monks and that adds another big advantage over a computer player because you can keep your fixed force alive much longer. Fixed Force scenarios are actually much easier to balance than Build and Destroy because there are less variables to deal with. I've played many fixed force scenarios that I've died miserably my first few times playing but once I discovered the right strategic techniques, I was able to win. That's great balance, and it's very possible with Fixed Force to achieve it... even more so with creative use of triggers.
All styles can be perfectly balanced... and even if you don't die at all while playing a scen, that doesn't automatically mean it's not balanced. Open your mind, be creative, never assume.