While tasting descriptors and qualitative assessment of any beverage is absolutely a subjective affair, we - as Americans - are fairly obsessed with ratings. Many people won't see a movie that doesn't get two thumbs up, won't eat dinner at an establishment that doesn't earn at least two stars, and won't buy a wine that doesn't garner at least a 90-point rating from Parker or Spectator.
Distilled spirits, I'm happy to say, seems to be less dominated by ratings and the consumer demand for them. I think this is because spirits are so brand-driven. That said, if you're aim is to provide a critical review of Bourbon (or anything else), you need to provide the reader with some means of assessing your qualitative reaction to that which you're reviewing. This need isn't so much to provide the reader with an 100% accurate/objective assessment, but to allow the reader a means to calibrate their palate to yours, the reviewer.
Take, as an example, the single-most influential critic out there: wine critic Robert Parker. Having known (and read) him for 20+ years, I've come to know that what 'rocks his world' are wines that are highly-extracted, with relatively high in pH, alcohol and that have a touch of residual sugar. So, when I see a "95-100" point rating from Bob, I know the wine reviewed is going to exhibit this style. If that's the style of wine I'm looking for, chances are I'll like this wine. Conversely, if I like leaner, higher-acid wines, it's a good bet to stay away from this Parker darling.