While I agree that the nature and value of reviews is highly determined by things not inherent to the quality of the language (which is to be expected for anything that deals with the real-world), I do think reviews of nascent languages have significantly higher signal to noise ratio than they do for languages that are at their peak or heading towards legacy land:
1. New languages are rarely used by novice programmers. Which means that they are rarely written about by novice programmers. Doing a search for "state of Ruby/Node" requires a lot of work to find reviews authored by experienced developers who have a clear mindset (i.e not just personifying a shallow version of Bjarne Stroustrup's famous axiom), while filtering out everyone who just got out of coding bootcamp and has a good Medium presence.
2. The fact that a language is new means that nearly everyone, except for the creator and early dogfooders, is new to it, which means they come to it with roughly the same perspective (and needs and wants) as anyone who is curious to jump in. Moreover, they are often wont to compare the new language with whatever language they've been using, which helps as a metric for gauging the experience level and judgment of the reviewer.
Sure, there's the problem of early adopters not wanting to shit on a language before it is stable...on the other hand, the kind of people who like to try out languages before they hit saturation are generally opinionated and will make critiques as way to help influence the language, so it's not a total whitewash.
Speaking for myself, reviews are not my first metric for judging a new language or framework. Understanding why it was created and how it is currently doing in production is by far the most important thing to me. Even though React felt very strange to me and many others at first, I still gave it the benefit of the doubt knowing that it was being used in Instagram and Facebook.