== From RFC on english wikipedia
>If an article is up for AfD and flagged as a possible hoax with insufficient medical sourcing, any reader visiting that article on a computer is greeted by three large red and orange boxes at the top of the page, one with a cautionary stop sign. The reader is clearly told that what they're about to read may be a complete fabrication, contains inadequately referenced medical advice, and that an active, serious discussion has been raised about removing the article from Wikipedia. If a reader instead visits the same hoax medical article on their phone (and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Product#Reading 45% of Wikimedia traffic is now from mobile devices]), they just get two tiny grey words "Page issues" under the article title - the same ignorable alert they'd get if the article had an inconsistent footnote style or a missing taxobox - and the article is presented like any other.
== Problem statement
Page issues are hidden even if they are important.
Because of the hacky way we deal with issues, sometimes other content is unnecessarily identified as issues and hidden e.g.
T166451 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Threat_of_harm_page_on_mobile_using_just_template.PNG
== User story
As a reader of wikipedia, I would like to know how reliable is the information I'm reading on wikipedia
== Solution
We can group page issues into two or three buckets.
1. Very urgent and important [High]
2. Moderately important [Medium]
3. It is okay if the user does not read this extra piece of information about this article [Low]
3 different treatments based on severity.
Examples
**High**
{F5928231}
**Medium**
{F5928238}
**low**
{F5928242}
**The treatments varies in color, language, and position of the message.**
==Next steps
Identify warning templates that go in each buckets viz, high / medium / low