@GGalofre-WMF This is nothing new. First brought to the WMF table by the en.Wiki community in 2022 and recently again to the Article Creation team with a presentation on a virtual conference based on the uregent needs of the en.Wiki , much of the work has been prepared. leaving only a proof of concept to be quickly engineered. What is missing is collaboration and discussion with the volunteer community/ies who have long term awareness and solid anecdotal experience going back years.

This specifically addresses How to integrate Article Guidance with the registration process, especially for newly registered user who have one single purpose only, and that is to immediately create and publish an article. These are the articles that are almost certain to be rejected by en.Wiki's sophisticated quality control processes which are much stricter than all other language Wikis, tried and tested, and have their own extensions developed in direct collaboration with the WMF.

The effort however is not only to encourage good faith users to get it right before they attempt to publish, but at the same time , and equally important, to prevent the creation of totally inappropriate articles before they even join the queue at the reviewing processes.

I fear that while there is some overlap, not all sections under the aegis of the Growth Team are familiar with the needs and challenges, and that further effort should be examined to avoid unnecessary duplication, the development of costly solutions, and long drawn out development processes and testing for what is already known and partially done.

In T424488#11864094, @Kudpung wrote:

This specifically addresses How to integrate Article Guidance with the registration process, especially for newly registered user who have one single purpose only, and that is to immediately create and publish an article. These are the articles that are almost certain to be rejected by en.Wiki's sophisticated quality control processes which are much stricter than all other language Wikis, tried and tested, and have their own extensions developed in direct collaboration with the WMF.

The effort however is not only to encourage good faith users to get it right before they attempt to publish, but at the same time , and equally important, to prevent the creation of totally inappropriate articles before they even join the queue at the reviewing processes.

A clarification on this point. The Article Guidance workflow (T414409) includes two steps intended to "prevent the creation of totally inappropriate articles before they even join the queue at the reviewing processes":

• Notability risk assessment step (T415485) makes it possible for communities to define requirements for the articles that are considered appropriate. These can be different for each type of articles. This allows communities to set a higher bar for biographies compared to articles about plants.
• Ask for sources step (T415484) sets the expectation for editors to have references available before starting to write the contents, provides community-defined guidance on recommended/discouraged sources, and allows communities to decide whether providing references upfront is mandatory (which can be adjusted differently for different types of articles).

The overall idea is to allow communities to add barriers where they are needed the most (i.e., where there is a higher risk of low quality/invalid article creation) while not adding unnecessary complexity in other scenarios.
This approach is illustrated in a video demo and can be tried in the test instance. Note that the specific restrictions will depend on how the outlines are defined for each type of article. The test instance has a set of example outlines, but each wiki can define their own set to meet their needs.

Please let us know if there is a particular example that illustrates the scenario you have in mind and how it could be better supported. Thanks!