User:Sdkb/Vision for a better Article Wizard

The current (2021) Article Wizard is not very good. It requires users to go through a bunch of technical steps that aren't needed and just introduce potential for error, and it doesn't actually help them draft a good article. On this page, I'm laying out a vision of a better Article Wizard. It would ideally be combined with a better VisualEditor that warns you when you do something like using peacock prose, adding an external link to the middle of the body, or adding content without a reference (see Edit check). It's currently just a rough outline featuring a bunch of non-functional steps, not an actual design, and it would take lots of developer help to realize. If you would be interested in working with me on a grant for it, please reach out.

The vision

 * 1) *Warns if article or draft already exists
 * 2) *Guides user through an undeletion request if it's been previously deleted (if deletion rationale appears to still apply, provides explanation)
 * 3) *Assists with disambiguation if needed (including adding a hatnote), e.g. if creating Jane Smith (underwater basket weaver) when Jane Smith already exists
 * 4) *Existing articles with a similar title are displayed somewhere (sidebar? suggested results in search?), and if the editor indicates that one is the intended topic, gives option to create a redirect to it
 * 5) *If there is a probable match on Wikidata, attempts to connect. If article exists in another language, points to the translation tool.
 * 6) Select article topic:
 * 7) *Additional layer(s) refine topic further. For instance, options under "biography" could include "athlete", "academic", "artist", "politician", etc., and options under "creative work" could include "book", "film", "song", etc. The topic tree is editable by the community and can be expanded over time.
 * 8) What is your relationship to [article]?
 * 9) *Automatically adds a COI disclosure to editor's userpage and draft's talkpage if there is a COI, and warns them not to edit directly
 * 10) (Brief paragraph about reliable sources) Please enter URLs of three sources:
 * 11) *We could experiment with having a non-prominent "add more" option that'd allow editors to submit up to five.
 * 12) *For each source, checks against WP:RSP or other list. If it appears unreliable, prompts user to change it.
 * 13) *For each source, asks user whether the portion directly discussing the subject is a few sentences, a few paragraphs, or longer. If a few sentences, prompts user to change to more significant coverage, and if a few paragraphs, warns that it may be borderline.
 * 14) *For each source, asks user whether the author has an affiliation with the subject. If so, prompts user to change to an independent source.
 * 15) *If sources are reliable, uses Citoid/similar to automatically fill out references.
 * 16) *If subject has SNG, asks user to select criterion and provide source for it.
 * 17) Form asks basic details about the topic (all fields optional).
 * 18) *If connected to a Wikidata item, prefills information obtained from that item.
 * 19) *Many of these will fill out the infobox, but some (such as a person's date of birth or an official website) are introduced to the body or used for categories as well.
 * 20) *Asks for a reference for each piece of information, allowing reference reuse. If editor does not do so, provides a warning that can be dismissed.
 * 21) *As each piece of information is filled out, a live article preview updates.
 * 22) Copyright disclaimer—user must check box attesting that they won't violate copyright. If Earwig detects a probable copyvio, provide a bold warning.
 * 23) Draft is prefilled with section headings, and user is asked to fill out each of them.
 * 24) *In addition to the prefilled content from step 5, each section has an associated panel containing concise information (managed by the relevant WikiProject) about what content is appropriate there and other best practices. For instance, the panel for the "Plot" header for a film might say something like "A concise (400–700 words) overview of the film's main events, avoiding minutiae like dialogue or scene-by-scene breakdowns. Use the present tense and include spoilers just as you would other information. Read more"
 * 25) *User has ability to modify section names or delete sections if they are not applicable to the topic.
 * 26) *If a section is left blank, Empty section is added to it.
 * 27) One-click button allows user to submit draft to AfC (or maybe, if autoconfirmed and not COI, move directly to mainspace) when ready. A status icon is shown after on the user's homepage so that they can track it (it encourages them to be patient).
 * 28) Standard elements are added automatically or (when not possible) through prompts, including:
 * 29) *The software prefills a suggested short description using some combination of the Wikidata description, categories, AI from similar articles, and words in the first sentence following "(is|was|are) a". The editor is allowed/encouraged to tweak it, and is warned if it goes over 40 characters (and warned sternly if over 60).
 * 30) *An English variety tag and date format tag is added if the draft is detected (based on categories or Wikidata) to be about a topic in a particular region with a preference, although the editor is allowed to change it.
 * 31) *Authority control is added if the article is of a type (e.g. a biography) that should have it.
 * 32) If draft is declined, user is guided through quick help screens explaining the relevant concept.
 * 33) Once created, prompts user to optionally de-orphan, add redirects (I envision a window where you can just type out a list and they'll all be created), and nominate for DYK (if long enough).
 * 1) One-click button allows user to submit draft to AfC (or maybe, if autoconfirmed and not COI, move directly to mainspace) when ready. A status icon is shown after on the user's homepage so that they can track it (it encourages them to be patient).
 * 2) Standard elements are added automatically or (when not possible) through prompts, including:
 * 3) *The software prefills a suggested short description using some combination of the Wikidata description, categories, AI from similar articles, and words in the first sentence following "(is|was|are) a". The editor is allowed/encouraged to tweak it, and is warned if it goes over 40 characters (and warned sternly if over 60).
 * 4) *An English variety tag and date format tag is added if the draft is detected (based on categories or Wikidata) to be about a topic in a particular region with a preference, although the editor is allowed to change it.
 * 5) *Authority control is added if the article is of a type (e.g. a biography) that should have it.
 * 6) If draft is declined, user is guided through quick help screens explaining the relevant concept.
 * 7) Once created, prompts user to optionally de-orphan, add redirects (I envision a window where you can just type out a list and they'll all be created), and nominate for DYK (if long enough).
 * 1) If draft is declined, user is guided through quick help screens explaining the relevant concept.
 * 2) Once created, prompts user to optionally de-orphan, add redirects (I envision a window where you can just type out a list and they'll all be created), and nominate for DYK (if long enough).
 * 1) Once created, prompts user to optionally de-orphan, add redirects (I envision a window where you can just type out a list and they'll all be created), and nominate for DYK (if long enough).
 * 1) Once created, prompts user to optionally de-orphan, add redirects (I envision a window where you can just type out a list and they'll all be created), and nominate for DYK (if long enough).