I've been a member of StackOverflow for almost 2 years. I only became active about a year ago.
Today my rep is 6382.
I earned that ranking because of my skills in JQuery, ASP.NET-MVC, etc. I have a very high accept rate among my answers too.
But while I seem to give reliable and useful answers (in my realm of expertise), I am a mediocre (or worse) reviewer. My audit history is poor. I've been banned multiple times for failing audits. I've improved by failing, but have also accepted that I'm not great and come to avoid it.
So I wonder: Does having a high rep prove that I am a good reviewer?
In my case, nothing about the way I earned my rep had anything to do with reviewing. I became a better answer poster from trial, error, and some critique. Hands on experience with my own projects helped.
I began to do review tasks after my rep was almost 4K, and I my audit history shows I was sloppy. I think I learned by doing and by failing. At this point I suspect I'm only OK as a reviewer. Far from reliable.
I would bet there are many users with 500 or below rep who would be far better reviewers than me. In fact, the only real test of a user's reviewing reliability is doing reviews (or audits).
I suspect that if users at the 200 level began doing reviews, and the community broadened their scope and entitlements / powers of reviewing proportionately to their audit scores, we would have more reliable reviewers than if we empowered users by their rep.
I may not be representative. I may be the sloppy outlier. But my experience with good developers and good administrators leads me to suspect there may be a negative correlation.
All I can say with certainty is that
answering questions and earning StackOverflow rep did NOT prove I was worthy of being a reviewer.
earning StackOverflow rep did not prepare me to do quality reviews.
being shamed and instructed by failed audits and bans helped me to learn.
a track record for good reviewing seems to be a more reliable measurement of how reliable a reviewer is.