Problematic articles

Well, pal, I am with you on that!

Wikiprojects currently have their "A, B, C" system.

Are you suggesting delegating to them an overhaul of how these marks are determined with benchmarks?

Or are you suggesting refining the GA system?

I can't imagine serious opposition to some proposal along these lines, from anyone.

Either way would be fine with me. In practice, we probably need to combine both, since it is unreasonable to vote for every stub to determine it is a stub. After flagged revisions have been introduced, editors are actually entrusted by the community to decide which articles are sub-standard and which are ok, and we can tie the baseline quality criterion with this level - then an editor decides whether the article is of baseline quality. May be for some other levels we may use trusted users as discussed in another tread,; for some problematic cases we may even need real experts. I believe some of this stuff can be delegated to the Wikimedia-wide-projects, but I do not think it is a good idea if the projects decide for instance what is baseline quality.