I've brought this up before, quite a while, but it has irritated me again enough to mention it again.
I understand the reasons for gatekeeping the pre-1500 profiles as they are, but the process for getting the profiles updated when you aren't yet approved is far more complicated than it needs to be, forcing two sets of manual edits. one by the researcher and one by the reviewer, and understandably that means requests for the review and updates don't always happen.
The simplest solution would be to allow read-only access to the markup for a profile, so that a free-space update page can work from the current state of the profile, and the reviewer then only has to review, and if satisfied, or requesting an update if not. This is far more likely to get actioned by an approved person.
A more streamlined solution, which may or may not be a big implementation given that profiles already have a change history, would be to allow such profiles to be 'branched', as happens with software development (such as GItHub). This would then allow the researcher to work directly on a non-published copy of the profile, which a pre-1500 reviewer can then approve (or not and request changes).
The essential aim here is to allow the person with a personal interest in the profile, and hence with the most motivation, to provide a full copy of a profile for review, whilst allowing the less interested reviewer to only have to review, instead of themselves having to go through a tedious manual merge themselves.
Edit: It occurs to me a third solution might be to use the Draft saves, so that a non pre-1500 member can save as a draft and a pre-1500 member can then turn a draft save into a full save. That would avoid potential merge complications with a branching mechanism. It would however, require a second person being able to be involved with a draft save, which I don't think is possible now.
