Just what constitutes a "good" review? What is useful to the author, and what helps the reader decide if the story might be worth reading?

It's easy to claim any review is purely subjective. Everyone has an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid. A review that provides some insight (from someone other than the author!) in the form of reasons for the subjective thumbs up or down is a real contribution to the whole community here, every bit as important as the library of stories. A one liner "this wuz gud" or the all-encompassing "bad" may be the most eloquent expression the reviewer was able to type, but it doesn't really help anyone else.

In a previous post I mentioned the idea of a review FAQ. To elaborate, here are some items I'd like to see addressed in a review (making them up as I go along):

Was the story entertaining? Was it worth the time spent reading? Did it hold your interest, did you think about what might happen next to the characters? Or did it quickly start to drag, too boring and repetitive?

Were the characters believable? Do people really talk that way? Were they completely predictable, cut from cardboard and stamped out in an assembly line? Could you identify with any of them? Did you want to be in their place?

Was there something unique about the story? There are only so many plots, but what about the way the narrative unfolds? Were the events and their outcome easy to predict, and disappointing in their stereotypical blandness?

What about the author's style, the choice of vocabulary, sentence structure, the way paragraphs and chapters break, even the punctuation? Was it distracting, or did it help the storyline?

And most important, did the story leave you wanting more?

That's my impromptu list. Anyone else have suggestions to add to it?