Ideally (in my opinion of, Incnis Mrsi), it means:
- Community agreed upon which edits are good and which are bad (that doesn’t preclude some grey zone, of course).
- A user making too many non-conforming edits is admonished and has to correct his/her activity, or desist.
- Reviews are performed, en masse, on the grounds of these agreed guidelines, not personal (dis)taste.
- The list of canned rejection reasons is modified accordingly. Better, a reviewer is obliged to enter a custom rejection reason in any borderline case.
- A user making some wrong reviews is admonished and has to correct his/her activity, or desist.
- Review queues do actually run. We can imagine a site where moderators scared reviewers to the point nobody is willing to review; that wouldn’t be a good example.
(At the request from comments: why namely these points? The first is obvious, since guidelines exist in each collaborative project. If guidelines exist, then reviews must follow it, hence the third point. The list of canned rejections seems to be invented by coders, not community consensus, but should serve the community. Points about non-conforming users are also evident, since different humans have different mistake rates, and, additionally, the power corrupts in the case of review. The last point about running is also obvious: a system that denies its job is worse than absence of a system.)
Of course, unlikely all these points are currently attained anywhere at Stack Exchange, but, possibly, some sites are trying to reach some good condition.
I found not very much on the problem, only Clear rules on reviewing edits, and Should edits trying to improve the content of an answer be approved? (especially a brilliant answer by hims056). Anyway, it all is more a theory than practice.
Please, don’t tell how the current “review” system is poor in general, and upon edits in particular. We, thinking humans, can easily find hundreds of stories of thoughtlessness, disruption, and frustration on meta sites, caused by it, but the question is about positive examples.