I've noticed that, too. Back in '99, I recall reading a Bowie review laced with superlatives like "fabulous" that culminated in a three-star review. Since when is three out of five a "good" score, anyway? Where I'm from, 60% is a D-minus.
Earlier, someone mentioned that genre-specific publications often put more thought and intelligent commentary into their reviews. Sadly, from my experience, this is seldom the case. Barcode E-zine, which has published several high-profile articles on Foxx, Numan, and other noteworthy new wave/post-punk pioneers, has churned out some of the vaguest, most poorly written reviews I've ever read. They rarely give Foxx anything above a 7.0/10.0, which would be fine if they'd bother to justify their ratings. Instead, they describe the music rather lazily, make a few hasty comparisons and generalizations, and dismiss Foxx as a "blip on the radar." If I were John, I'd take offense to that. He's a nicer guy than I am, though.