Sometimes my edits are rejected for no good reason. A good example is when I add a new major tag (like asp.net) to the question, and the edit is rejected for being a too minor edit. Adding an asp.net tag is not a minor edit. Everyone should know that.
By the way, this question does not have anything to do with the one suggested here. The only thing I can think of they have in common are the words "review" and "audit". That question is asking what audit reviews are, but my question is actually a suggestion on having a guideline for reviewing edits, or having an audit of edit reviews.
Note this question only looks similar, but is essentially different: What are review tests (audits) and how do they work?
As opposed to above question, this one is asking if there's a way to review reviews. The goal is the same as review audits (to improve the quality of reviewers), but the mechanism is different. Also, review of reviews is an active mechanism and review audit is a passive mechanism.
To put it simply, let edits be E and reviews be R. Review audits is still reviewing E (except that the E is not a real edit), whereas here I am asking whether there is anything to review R.