We could have two main categories: articles that are copied as whole from an external source and must not be modified (except for Wiki cosmetics and spelling); and those that are free-edit essays like the BoE one. The problem with the BoE article is that it's a highly debatable subject. Such contradictions cannot come up in case of say, a basic texturing tutorial (the one that we currently have looks okay to me). Articles thar belong to the first category should be provided with a template that warns the browsers not to change its content, only its look. I made some such headers for some pages transferred from kara's FAQ, but I'm not sure that's a template (in the Wiki-coding-related sense). Someone with knowledge of HTML coding could help?
The peer-review idea is self-fulfilling, anyway. Considering the amount of edits made on a weekly basis, any regular FS Wiki patroller can keep track of all changes to any article. The largest problem I can see with this is that there are some subjects that no current regular Recent Changes patroller is adept at. If those articles that deal with these topics, there will be inaccuracies no doubt.
We need some more articles as examples. Which ones do you have in mind specifically?
[EDIT]Another note: Perhaps outlining a quick and rough guideline could help. These guidelines should be very general and flexible, because articles should be judged on individual basis. As I said, using the Battle of Endor Syndrome article as a reference to draw some general guidelines is not a good idea because of the nature of its topic.
[EDIT2]Having read through the BoE page, there must indeed be some sort of indication that the page's topic is debatable. It has been discussed extensively at HLP. Perhaps linking to that thread could help verify the "This is a highly debatable subject" assertion?
