I think that (the creation of internal bibliographies) is an excellent idea. We should add it to our list of solutions/ways to overcome barriers for quality.
If Meta projects are created as proposed previously (by you?) then creation of internal bibliographies should be their core business.
Yes, a good idea. This, together with the creation of 1000-article lists to assist the growth of coverage, could be the main task of a meta-project. Another function would be to have a central discussion point where any user can ask questions about the project's field of interest.
That's right. This is probably less of an issue for en.wp, but on smaller Wikipedias some of the projects are not active: for instance, we have relatively active projects on biology and pharmacology, but virtually a dead project on chemistry and physics. If I get a strange atricle on physics/chemistry, I would like to have a chance to ask at a meta level, may be assisting with the translation.
Since we have to fill in the weekly report, can we may be start formulating this wiki project proposal? It looks like a real good idea for a broader discussion. Can it be that these projects have been created previously and failed?