User talk:Calliopejen1/AFC overhaul

Some Thoughts
Hi, I how would you feel about some kind of template that allows editors to approve parts of the draft and decline others, and create a method to build up the article, like in these examples.

David Smith
David Smith is a British businessman and futurist who is CEO of Smith Scientific Ltd, a world-leading innovation company making cutting-edge AI technology based on cloud-based blockchains and data-mining. He was born in Manchester and completed a PhD at the University of Edinburgh.

John Davies
John Davies is an English footballer who plays as left-back for Coventry City. He played his debut in a League One fixture against Sunderland on 15 September 2020.

Review

 * I like this format too. Creating tables is hard on mobile, source assessment and notability assessment could be easily done in plain format too. Example review—
 * Decline: source assessment (below) shows and a Google search doesn't bring up anything suggesting notability. Fails WP:NCORP.
 * Sources assessment:
 * BBC: travial mention only.
 * LinkedIn: social media, not independent.
 * Forbes: WP:FORBESCON, not reliable.
 * A review like this would only be one of the several votes on the "AfC nomination"; others can dispute the result of one reviewer's assesment and conduct their own and vote against, or agree and vote same or just vote anyway they like.
 * On 's question (on the AFC overhaul page), if a draft is rejected and the nominator disputes, I don't think we would need a DRV like process. They can just move it to mainspace themselves (or if they don't the access to do it, ask someone else who agrees with their view) and let the wider community decide on an AfD. If no one else agrees with their view that draft is ready for mainspace, that's a consensus on it's own. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 10:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)