Opinion is divided on the question of a structure. XDG earlier in this thread commented that a structure was possibly unnecessary. I lean more towards your view. A structure, however loose, would provide guidance to reviewers and probably make potential reviewers more willing to comment without a) generating poor quality feedback, or b) putting people off reviewing because they don't want to send poor quality feedback.

Here's a few possible questions:

• Does the synopsis clearly explain what the module does?
• Is the syntax of the constructor and any main methods clear from the perldoc
• Is there any functionality not documented (and therefore probably not present) you would like to see in the module
• Is the perldoc correctly formatted (and if not, what is the problem and where)?
• Does the meta data contain a) license, b) language used c) development stage?

As far as brainstorming goes, it might be worth considering opt-in/opt-out of perldoc reviews, setting up a site to post to rather than direct to the author etc. The danger there is that we then potentially start talking about review activity taking place somewhere other than CPAN, which I'm a little dubious about.

c.

Update: Then again, I just looked at recently active threads and found this