Yes, also rating disambiguation pages is ... awkward.
They can be rated, but the four categories seem to be suited specifically to rate medium-length articles only. As the OP stated, they make no sense for really short articles and stubs. Yes you can rate them "Incomplete", but then does it make sense to rate them as not Trustworthy or not Objective as well? Does "Well-written" mean quality of writing even if it's short, or is an article that is too short per definition not well-written?
Similarly for very long articles that present a very wide range of opinions and perhaps quality of writing, does that make them Trustworthy? Well-written? I wouldn't like to summarize that into a 1-5 star rating.
IMO, the four categories are not very well chosen, as they mean very different things in differing contexts of articles.
Sure, these are definitely the four (most important) things you are interested in measuring. But that doesn't mean you must measure them by straight-out asking for them! :) You got a huge encyclopaedia here at your fingertips, how about starting to read up a bit on Social Research?
Basically, you forget there's an intermediate step. The four categories are called "axes" on which you'd like to score most proper articles. In that context, they are probably well-chosen. But in order to obtain the scores on these axes, you must formulate the questions wisely, which is most often NOT done by asking "How much would you rate this on the axis of X?" (which is what you're doing now). Entire textbooks have been written about this subject, which at least a century old (and depending on how you look at it, even much older).