User:Bradv/Draft rescue project

Proposal: Draft sorting

In the past month since the Strickland incident (read all about it in this month's Signpost), there has been much discussion around the handling of drafts on possibly notable subjects which are not ready for mainspace. I've been thinking a lot about how we handle this, and I think I've come up with a something worth discussing.

There are a number of Wikipedia editors across this project who would gladly work on drafts and get them ready for mainspace, but they may not be interested in being AFC reviewers. I propose we create a system of tagging drafts that require improvement or editor assistance, particularly bad articles (poorly sourced, COI, etc.) on potentially notable topics. I propose that we do this in a relatively simple manner which does not increase the workload on AfC reviewers, and cannot be easily co-opted by submitters trying to push their articles to the front of the queue.

This proposal consists of three main components:

1. A set of project pages, each containing links to drafts on potentially notable topics that are in need of improvement. We could start with a separate page for each of notability categories current listed in the AFCH tool, although this could easily be reduced or increased later as appropriate. Adding and removing entries on the list should only be done by AFC reviewers or uninvolved editors, and to enforce this each of the project pages would be extended-confirmed protected.
2. Additions to the current AFCH script which would allow reviewers to tag/sort via a simple checkbox when declining a draft, along with a mechanism for tagging drafts apart from declining them, preferably with a comment.
3. A bot which would monitor the project pages and remove red links (for drafts that have been deleted) and redirects (for duplicate drafts and drafts that have been accepted). By adding links with a script, and removing them by bot, the project pages should require minimal manual maintenance.

Advantages and goals:

1. It is currently very rare for a new editor to receive actual assistance in getting their drafts ready for mainspace. They receive templated messages, brief advice, and sometimes harsh criticism, but an uninvolved editor collaborating with a new editor to get a draft accepted is not something I've encountered too often. This would hopefully change that.
2. For various reasons, some of Wikipedia's most prolific content creators currently stay away from the AfC project. If they do participate, they may spend hours clicking through drafts before finding one that they are interested in improving. With this project, they would only need to watch one or more project pages based on their interests or areas or expertise.
3. AfC reviewers are frequently targets of criticism for just templating new editors' work, rather than cleaning it up themselves and accepting it. Conversely, reviewers are also criticized for accepting drafts without any improvement at all, leaving NPP reviewers to either do the work themselves or kick the can further down the road. This project would allow reviewers who aren't interested in doing cleanup themselves to pass it off to someone who is (and may not be interested in reviewing drafts themselves).
4. Reviewers frequently have to make some tough judgement calls about notability, and presently the only way to do this is by pinging an expert in that subject area (I can think of one editor who gets pinged frequently on academic subjects). While this system works to a certain extent, this project would provide a more convenient and formal structure to encourage second opinions on AfC reviews.
5. Drafts are often submitted and declined repeatedly, often for issues that are easily handled by accomplished editors, but daunting for newbies. Perhaps (and this might be a stretch) by creating more collaboration within draftspace, we can encourage and educate new editors, reduce the workload on AfC reviewers, and improve Wikipedia's content library, all at the same time!

A final note: Before presenting this proposal, I have discussed this with Enterprisey, who endorses the idea and is willing to handle the script and bot components. I can put together the relevant WikiProject pages, and can help recruit editors to join the project. However, for this system to work it's going to require buy-in from the AfC community, and opinions on whether this system could work. Also, we would need to find a good name for this project. Draft for rescue? Drafts needing assistance? Drafts for improvement? What do people think of this idea?