Software and systems architecture is a success-critical issue in software projects. Changing nonfunctional quality requirements, e.g., performance, modifiability, and maintainability, can have strong impact on software architecture and can result in a high rework effort in case of changes. Architecture reviews help evaluating architectural design with scenarios in early stages of product development. Quality-sensitive scenarios represent a set of software requirements (including non-functional quality attributes). In this paper we empirically investigate the impact of potentially important factors on the number and quality of scenarios elicited in an architecture evaluation workshop: (a) scoring schemes for scenario quality, (b) workshop participant experience, and (c) team size for workshop group work. We report data analysis results from an empirical study where 24 reviewers at different experience levels identified over 100 scenarios. Main findings are: (a) results of different scoring approaches (frequency-based and expert scoring) agree very well regarding critical scenarios, (b) the scenario elicitation method was more important than individual experience, and (c) adding a new person to a team of size 3 or more increases scenario coverage by less than 10%.