Congratulations, Trollheart! You've come up with a journal rating system that is more complicated that Elo's notoriously complex system of ranking international chess players.
I like the fact that quality as well as quantity matters to you. But don't be surprised if some ambitious journal writers attempt to game your point system to get larger ratings pay-offs.
Aside from evaluating functional literacy, the measurement of a good or even great writer is completely subjective. It's impossible to assess a writer's creative vision or the authenticity of a writer's conversational voice with a point system. However, I do applaud your noble efforts capture lightning in a bottle.
From my perspective, your short and concise summary critiques of journal articles are a better evaluation tool than any sort of point based rating system. I also think it would be helpful if your dared to critique the shortcomings of some of our journalistic efforts. I am constantly encouraged by editors to develop and leaner and more concise style of writing. The mastery of a large vocabulary is more often than not, an impediment to good writing.
I've noticed that many Music Banter journals are bold and daring conceptually, but the quality of the journalist's writing doesn't quite live up to the journalist's visionary promise. For those writers it's simply a matter of developing an authentic literary voice, which comes about through the rather monotonous process of sitting alone and writing for extended periods of time. The reason writers spend so much time talking about writing is it avoids the unpleasant but necessary task of sitting quietly and writing.
I must say I envy some of the younger Music Banter members who are far better writers than I was in my younger days. At age 21, I simply didn't possess the artistic discipline to maintain journal that required a well composed essay, 3 or 4 times a week. I was too busy having fun to sit in solitude and write down my thoughts.