Scott: From the 'reviewers' side (quickly for now)...
Biggest delay lately has been the tech card (permit app) and the plans not matching in items and quantities. It is amazing with the slow economy that the EC's miss/omit items, or have 'fudged' counts. I'm not referencing device counts, but what I refer to as 'major' items', panels, large equip., etc.
As to the quality of the plans...most are good..a few are really bad. Egress lighting circuitry, panel schedules, load calcs, one-lines, etc., not addressed.
The above results in reject notices, phone calls, etc., and often a call from 'Administration'...."what's the hold-up?"
The only think I would say is you need those load calcs. We had a thread here recently about extending an existing circuit without and acknowledgment of what was already on it and what it served.
In the residential I see the plan is usually more of a guideline than an actual diagram of what they build, particularly if they are mastered. Pushing walls around usually changes outlet placement and it is very common that extra outlets get installed, either at customer request or to meet 210.52(A) requirements.
There are a few architects out there that are very gifted or they have a good computer drafting program and make beautiful diagrams that fall short on electrical specifications. It is not uncommon to see things missing or left so vague that the plans can not be approved. The reason for plan review is to lessen the possibility of installing a system that will not meet code. An virtual inspection if you want to call it that. Type of usage, wiring method, raceway fill, type of raceway, type of wire, clearances from other items in the room, arc flash calculations, available fault current, loads on circuits and feeders, riser diagram, specifications on equipment requirements, details on system grounding, available voltage from utility, panel ledgers, location of exits and emergency lighting equipment, circuiting, overcurrent protection and I'm sure I left out some. I find it rather lax for an architect or engineer or design professional to submit a plan that has a disclaimer that says "Subject to local Codes" or uses a rubber stamp that has generic wording that is only basic information that is might say "To be installed to the current version of the NEC". Find out from the Building Department which version of the NEC is in place and design to that. I have a punch list that is useful when I perform a plan review that help me remember things to check.
The State of Michigan has a firm policy that requires that plans are sealed by a licensed Architect or Engineer. While this certainly helps we still see a lot of plans that get sent back.
I might post images of an Electrical Plan Set from some past Project, as an example of what I commonly include. Just need to make the posted stuff readable, and that's going to be really hard to do! The best option for readability, would be to link the PDF versions for download, then the Plan Sheets may be viewed via a "PDF Reader" (i.e. Adobe Acrobat Reader).
Nevertheless, I really appreciate the contributions so far - and for John making this Topic a "Sticky Note".
Scott " 35 " Thompson Just Say NO To Green Eggs And Ham!