`I think there's a chance, but we should avoid the appearance of arguing with reviewers; perhaps we should refer specifically to the FAQ when submitting the article.  We should also first do an unofficial review and make some changes here first, to take account of likely issues.     === Unofficial ``review`` kickoff === Here are a few potential issues that I noticed: *change ``ensuring`` to ``intended to ensure``, since the former implies success (which would probably be construed as POV). *There are a number of faulty links (deadlinks, access denied, redirects, etc.) * ``area of freedom, security and justice`` should probably be in inverted commas or italics; otherwise it sounds like meaningless PR. *Do the images in the Geography section (particularly the coast of Crete) really illustrate the text? *There are flags such as ``citation-needed`` and ``who?``. *Words like ``micromanage`` are POV. *I'm not sure if most people would understand the Legal section. For instance would a reader understand the specialist meaning of ``regulation`` in an EU context (e.g. that a so-called (Council) regulation is equivalent to a law).  *The ``even`` in ``may even invalidate EU legislation`` sounds a little ``surprised``  (of course fundamental rights take precedence over normal legislation!).   *Improve references to include more books to supplement or replace many of the europa.eu sources (europa.eu is OK for many things like legislation, official statements, policy and statistics but should be checked).  *I'm not sure if the text 'In negotiations on the Treaty of Lisbon, French President Nicolas Sarkozy succeeded in removing the words ``free and undistorted competition`` from the treaties. However, the requirement is maintained in an annex and it is unclear whether this will have any practical effect on EU policy.'  is OK (i.e. supported by the reference and the treaties).     `