Could specificity be a test of writing, as Ron suggests, few days ago? At best it's a shortcut: good writing tends to be more specific than bad writing is, so if the writing is specific, it is more likely to be good. And otherwise bad writing that has some specificity to it might have something salvageable. It's similar to my conception of "conventionally good writing." Writing with strong imagery, an attention to rhythm, etc... is going to be better than writing without these things. But this is ONLY a shortcut. For example, the poem of Rukeyser quoted by Ron does not seem particularly good to me, despite the specificity of the details. It seems to me the poem has to strike us as good first. Then, if asked why, we might point to the things that make it good. A very abstract poem, that witheld its specifics, might be very good too!