User:Enterprisey/AfC brainstorming

Brainstorming improvements to AfC.

Please add to this list. All ideas welcome.

From March 2022 WT:WPAFC discussion (permalink).

Preliminary reading

 * Goodhart's law

Improving reviewers' tools

 * simplify common workflows

Allowing reviewers to get more done with the same amount of effort

 * Incentivize submission of drafts with sources, especially "high-quality" sources, by bumping them ahead in the queue; then tell draft authors about that
 * Further incentivize authors to only use their "best" sources (scoring system for drafts...?)
 * Source highlighters based on RSP/RSN exist, scoring system could detect reliable sources in a similar way, +1 for every instance of a distinct reliable source found (but how to avoid unrelated sources being added just to game the system?)
 * Quickfail any drafts using content farm / PR sources masquerading as independent news? (Often take long to discover.)
 * Autodecline blanks, then remove "blank" reason
 * Detect only visibly blank issue - i.e. accidental commented out submission (I find a couple a month)
 * Auto feedback to submitters of possible issues that if fixed will increase chance of not being rejected/quicker review - maybe tag article, and tags removed as issues addressed. Quick feedback for submitters and reduce load on reviewers
 * No references - Difficult to detect but could warn for no ref tags at all
 * Bare urls - point them to WP:REFBEGIN
 * Sections without any refs - suggest add refs or remove
 * Number of refs very small or large for content length
 * More than two consecutive refs - possible WP:REFBOMB point to select best source
 * detection of common puff words and warn on MOS:PUFFERY
 * Warn for overemphasis: too much bolding, lots of ALLCAPS, etc

Reducing the minimum amount of effort required to participate as a reviewer

 * Split reviewing into subtasks or a checklist (copyvio, sources, prose, doesn't duplicate existing draft or article, WP:MINREF)
 * new minimum reviewing task: categorize a single source as one of three options: contributes to notability; doesn't contribute but can be used; can't be used

Finding creative ways to encourage more editors to do reviews

 * Figure out which drafts are "related to" a particular article or subject area (drafts must be "high quality" first), then put banners on articles or watchlists or wikiprojects ("drafts this project may be interested in")