Alex : lovely idea. confusing name, though. 99.9% of wikipedia is trusted by *someone*, after all... Better to do a small project as you suggest, with a topic specific name, and see how it works out. The Chemistry WikiProject is currently doing that kind of expert peer review on chem articles; they have 15+ phds and professors who have split up the major articles and are shepherding them to high information density, well-referenced 'feature' quality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry On a personal level, I think it is unbearably charming that there is a 'chemicals trophy box' maintained by proud coeditors in the "chemicals" subproject of this chemistry project, which informs me that Caffeine is the latest article on a chemical to gain 'featured' status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CHEM I am an advocate for what you propose, which I have called a 'blessed versions' approach to stability and peer review. It has not yet been implemented by anyone; you would be the first. Please update this page as the project progresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Blessings Best wishes, SJ