Initial trials with the model show good similarities with the observed data. The model is being refined, but the simulations may provide sufficient indication for identifying outstanding writing. The implied logarithmic scale also can also be converted into the more readily appreciated arithmetic scale, so that an average mark of 1.23 (16 marks from 13 judges) equates to about 3.4, while an average mark of 1.61 (total of 21 from 13) equates to 5.0. Is it justified in assuming that a score of 21 (i.e. a work 5 times better than the weakest) is outstandingly good? This exercise relates simply to the quality of short passages of writing on given subjects within constraints, where the judges all have relevant experience in the art. However, it appears possible that it could be extended to longer passages of writing as well as other branches of artistic creation.