There's sort-of a process like that, but the in-progress articles are still articles, vs. being explicitly marked as drafts or not-yet-articles or something of

There's sort-of a process like that, but the in-progress articles are still articles, vs. being explicitly marked as drafts or not-yet-articles or something of that sort. The progression is something like this (from needs-most-work upwards): 1. Articles explicitly tagged with a warning at the top (needs references, might be biased, reads like an advertisement, doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject, is out of date, etc.). Here the reader is warned that the article needs work and should be taken with a large grain of salt. 2. Default "regular" articles. These are supposed to be at least passable, free of the obvious problems in the previous category. Though sometimes they just haven't been properly marked. The reader should treat them with appropriate caution, looking for references for claims (especially any surprising claims), corroborating with other sources, and assuming that the article may be incomplete. 3. Articles marked as "good articles" [1]. These have been reviewed by one or more editors, and are considered to be well-referenced and reasonably complete. They're marked by a little green plus in the upper-right. A conservative use of Wikipedia could be to treat anything at a lower level than this one as a draft article, in various stages of draftiness. 4. Articles marked as "featured articles" [2]. These are supposed to be checked by multiple editors, including at least one expert in the field, and considered to be excellent examples of a Wikipedia article, with no obvious deficiencies. They're marked by a gold star in the upper-right. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_articles [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles