This interface has the same core problems as many other such rating systems: (1) It introduce a way to heavy workload, (2) it is outside the normal workflow, and (3) it is not clear how it actually is meant to be used.
(1) Writing a manual reason is not efficient. Making an interface like this will only lead to users writing crappy gadgets to work around the limitation. It would be far better (faster) to have prepared reasons and that would also make it a lot easier to analyse the reasons later on. (The four prepared reasons does not really fit very well. Bad faith? How can you really know if something is done in bad faith? This is plain crystal ball!)
(2) Whether something like this is used depends on it being part of a workflow. This seems to be outside all workflows, and then I start wondering why should anyone use the page? The only process I know of that really needs something like this is Featured Articles, but I'm not sure there are enough willingness to adapt current processes.
(3) Core problem; should you describe a change or a revision? You identify and post comment on a revision, yet what is shown is a diff. What do you comment in this case? I have no idea. See also phab:T185247, you need a rationale for you classification, but then what do you classify?