For cases where the article reviewing times may exceed the experiment timeframe, one idea discussed was to approximate the likelihood of deletion by the number and type of EditCheck issues detected in the articles created. Since edit checks are processed at the client, currently this may not be viable, but future work (T416533) may enable data to be used elsewhere.

In T416373#11665536, @Andrew wrote:

If it is shutting down, it would be good to understand. which will be the available alternatives to provide communities with that kind of support.

Quarry accesses the same datasets as the superset install, so any query that works in superset should be available there as well.

In T415485#11651633, @SBisson wrote:

In T415485#11621786, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

• draft: Publication allowed only under the draft namespace (where it exists) or the user namespace (as a sub-page of tthe user page).

Does it mean we build the edit URL to put the new article in the draft (or user) namespace? Or does it mean the other requirements are lifted because it's only going to be a draft?

So I'll hide the "Search languages" text. What about the "Suggested" and "All languages" sub heading?

In T418187#11643192, @abi_ wrote:

@Pginer-WMF, @SGautam_WMF thoughts about using this image for the beta feature? I've taken it from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Language_Selector_Designs.pdf

After further investigation, it seems that the search page on mobile has the option to create a new article hidden in most cases. In addition, given that such option is represented as a red link, it can be supported by the general "Red links (with criteria)" case. Updating the proposal at the ticket description to avoid confusions.

Over the years, data has been useful in conversations with communities. For projects like content Translation, getting to a shared understanding of how much content is created, which are the deletion rates, how the content creation is distributed acoss editors of different edit count levels, etc. has helped to get into more nuanced conversations. One of th eproblems we encountered is that the data, for example when using Turnilo, was not publicly available. Having a public instance of Superset seemed like useful way to provide communities with this data in a way that they can have a better understanding earlier and in a more independent way. If it is shutting down, it would be good to understand. which will be the available alternatives to provide communities with that kind of support.

In T253303#11600661, @abi_ wrote:

• Sorting languages - Languages are ordered based on their script and label as specified but the ordering is done from left to right instead of top to bottom. I think this offers a more natural experience and reduces eye movement.

1. Proposed entry points

As suggested by @SGautam_WMF, we can move the "Notability Risk Warning" before the "References" step. For cases where the risk assessment indicates that sources are mandatory, we can enforce that in the later step. In this way, we won't be asking for sources to create a biography that later won't allow the user because of the notability restrictions.

For the notability check, as a starting point we can consider a simplified way to define the conditions.
We could capture some conditions as tags that can be combined:

1. Observations on current entry points

@MNeisler pinging in case you know about some existing analysis showing any data on the current entry points people use to get to Visual Editor on mobile.

Thanks for sharing the initial thinking on how to approach this technically, @SBisson. Overall, it makes sense to me, and I like how existing elements (wiki pages and Wikidata items) are re-used. Some thoughts and questions to understand the implications below:

EditCheck support for citation needed seems quite useful to surface a relevant opportunity to contribute.

In T260131#11473804, @ngkountas wrote:

@Pginer-WMF the "Publish as a new section" option is available on mobile for non-lead sections. The screenshot you shared above is for a present lead section. For lead sections, we do not include the "Publish as a new section" option, because we do not have any target section title that we can use for such publishing. If we want to support the "Publish as a new section" option, too, what target section title do you think we should use?

Thanks @cchen for the useful analysis.