I get the feeling that several posters disagree more with the content of Matt's "checklist" than the fact that he may use one.
I disagree plenty with Matt, but I don't think this approach is really all that bad. I'd rather see someone put this sort of thought into a rating, even if I disagree with it, than the "I know greatness when I see it" approach. Without even looking at the top 10 list, I'd guess most of the courses break at least a couple of "rules". Pine Valley doesn't have any gambling reachable par 5s, does it? Does Pebble have a driveable par 4? The Old Course only has 2 par 3s, and they're even in the same general direction.
My own personal "checklist" would probably have things more like "does the course fit the site", "does the course look natural", "did I enjoy the challenges presented", etc.
Fortunately, I've never been asked to rate courses, so my criteria simply leads to my own personal list of courses that I would seek to play again.
Nobody ever said this stuff was easy or clearcut. That's part of what makes it so interesting. The "checklist" approach overlooks a lot, IMHO, but, hey, golf's a great big game....