I'm inclined to suggest that if this badge is implemented, it should:

1. Not include "improves" as they lead towards the Copy Editor and Strunk & White badges
2. It should be a silver badge for a non-trivial number of reviews.
3. There could/should be a gold badge available for having reviewed N edits every M for O (e.g. 10 edits every week for 10 weeks).
4. Only count edit approvals/rejections where the vote made concurs with that placed by the other voter (not doing this could lead to people just clicking accept, accept, accept, accept,.... on the review page).

or

5. Require that the users accept/reject ratio be within a certain range of the sites "average".

Just a few ideas, with 4 and 5 mainly being concerned with ensuring that non-desirable behaviour isn't encouraged by the existance of the badge.

I'm inclined to suggest that if this badge is implemented, it should:

1. Not include "improves" as they lead towards the Copy Editor and Strunk & White badges

2. It should be a silver badge for a non-trivial number of reviews.

3. There could/should be a gold badge available for having reviewed N edits every M for O (e.g. 10 edits every week for 10 weeks).

4. Only count edit approvals/rejections where the vote made concurs with that placed by the other voter (not doing this could lead to people just clicking accept, accept, accept, accept,.... on the review page).

   or

5. Require that the users accept/reject ratio be within a certain range of the sites "average".

Just a few ideas, with 4 and 5 mainly being concerned with ensuring that non-desirable behaviour isn't encouraged by the existance of the badge.

I'm inclined to suggest that if this badge is implemented, it should:

1. Not include "improves" as they lead towardsthe Copy Editor and Strunk & White badges
2. It should be a silver badge for a non-trivial number of reviews.
3. There could/should be a gold badge available for having reviewed N edits every M for O (e.g. 10 edits every week for 10 weeks).
4. Only count edit approvals/rejections where the vote made concurs with that placed by the other voter (not doing this could lead to people just clicking accept, accept, accept, accept,.... on the review page).

or

5. Require that the users accept/reject ratio be within a certain range of the sites "average".

Just a few ideas, with 4 and 5 mainly being concerned with ensuring that non-desirable behaviour isn't encouraged by the existance of the badge.

I'm inclined to suggest that if this badge is implemented, it should:

1. Not include "improves" as they lead towards the Copy Editor and Strunk & White badges
2. It should be a silver badge for a non-trivial number of reviews.
3. There could/should be a gold badge available for having reviewed N edits every M for O (e.g. 10 edits every week for 10 weeks).
4. Only count edit approvals/rejections where the vote made concurs with that placed by the other voter (not doing this could lead to people just clicking accept, accept, accept, accept,.... on the review page).

or

5. Require that the users accept/reject ratio be within a certain range of the sites "average".

Just a few ideas, with 4 and 5 mainly being concerned with ensuring that non-desirable behaviour isn't encouraged by the existance of the badge.