Anyone ever notice that is often the case when a reviewer thinks a wine underperforms s/he mentions facts about the wine rather than provide additional (negative) assessment?

I read this from Galloni (who in my opinion does this big time) on the 2016 Turley Judge Bell Zinfandel:

"A powerful wine, the 2016 Zinfandel Judge Bell Vineyard is built on a core of serious fruit intensity and tannin. I imagine the 2016 will need quite a few years to be at its best, as it is very much tightly wound at this stage. This is one of the more burly wines in this range, at least today. The Judge Bell emerges from a site planted at 1,500 feet above sea level in 1907." 90-93 points [which is crazy low for Galloni these days]

Just an interesting observation, wonder if anyone shares it.