However, when someone is very clearly writing for entertainment, rather than to create literature as an art form, I judge them by a much lower standard because they're writing pulp for the masses. At that point it's more like watching a summer blockbuster - did I enjoy it? Were the plot holes so big that it detracted from my ability to enjoy it? Were the characters believable? Did their motivations make sense? Did the dialogue make me cringe (or laugh)?
By that standard, I think Sanderson is okay most of the time. When he tries to be too descriptive he usually falls flat on his face, and his characters are sometimes too similar to one another and not very well developed. But generally, it's enjoyable.
I'm used to reading for one purpose that even when I switch over to read for another, certain things become magnified. But ultimately, I do rate his works on another scale, even while accounting for things that irritated me as I did read it. But even taking this into account, there are times that even "easy" entertainment fails because he occasionally gets in the way of his own narrative by trying to do too much in simplistic scenes with equally simplistic characters.
Je suis méchant.