Magna Carta response Magna Carta Project we have a section at the end, below the Acknowledgements heading, where we identify what trails (lines of descent) from Gateway Ancestors to Surety Barons the person is in whether a profile has been reviewed and approved for the project, and by whom and when whether the whole line of descent has been approved by the project
make extensive use of Research Notes to highlight common errors and things on which there is disagreement and uncertainty, and occasionally put warnings in bold above the "Biography" heading.
volunteers post a comment on the profile before and after they "develop" a profile. Once they're done developing a profile, the review team looks at it. It might be helpful if PGM posted a profile comment that the profile was up-to-date/genealogically-defined/whatever so you'd have a record of when it was updated and who did it. We've taken it a step further and have spreadsheets that include all project-managed profiles that need more work (there are 1500+, but we manage a LOT of profiles). We also have profile development teams to work on those specific profiles.
Also, like MCP, I believe that the Mayflower Project has a checklist and when the profile has been reviewed against their checklist, they add a line at the bottom of the profile that says something like: This profile was updated and reviewed for the Mayflower Project, date/name.
If PGM noted in the biography or in the comments of the profile that the profile was up to project standards, you'd only have to scroll to the bottom of the page to see if the profile has been properly reviewed.
The Magna Carta Project has a detailed checklist. (caution) I very much share the qualms about adopting an option which could be seen as deterring people from contributing constructively to further improvement of profiles.
Acadie project: I would be in favor of some kind of Seal of Approval but not more locks, and make it very clear new information is welcomed for discussion - please post in comments, etc. Make it a noticeable symbol like JD Power does, or Consumer Reports, etc. not buried in the Project box (unless it can be differentiated quite well from what people are used to seeing).
do you think people would be offended if their profiles aren't "approved"?
We have a checklist too for the Acadian project and have about 350 of them done. Maybe we will talk about a heading like that.
Certified could be a useful word, rather than approved.
A checklist, could even incorporate things we are still looking for as a research prompt.
New Netherland Project: very nice to have a label that projects could apply to profiles that are deemed to be in particularly good condition and should be treated with special respect because of their good condition. WikiTree has reached a stage of maturity where there are a more than a few profiles that could be considered exemplary for the quality of the genealogy and the writing, and identification/designation of such profiles could help projects (and all of WikiTree) in a variety of ways. This identification/designation would be similar in some respects to the Examples Gallery and the collection of past Example Profiles of the Week, except that displaying the high-quality label (or whatever we would call it) directly on the profile (maybe with a sticker) and also in a category (rather than on a separately maintained gallery page) would reduce the need for upkeep that a gallery page entails -- and would make it easier to remove the designation when the profile deteriorates or standards change. I am thinking in terms of something similar to the Featured Article designation at Wikipedia, which is applied to a article by members of the Wikipedia community (not the authors of the article), is based on evaluation of both content quality and style, and can be removed if the article quality is diminished or if standards change. I do not anticipate that WikiTree would undertake anything as elaborate as the Wikipedia Featured Article designation process, but I think it would be beneficial for a project to have a mechanism to designate profiles as representatives of that project's best work. This designation could identify good examples for others to emulate, and it also would identify profiles that should be treated with respect -- not damaged by actions like being edited by GEDCOM imports or being restructured to conform with one contributor's unique personal style. It would be reasonable to expect that such profiles be Genealogically Defined, but that should not be the sole criterion.
Mayflower project: The Mayflower Project has a checklist https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Mayflower_Profile_Checklist Biographies are based on the information in the "Silver and pink" books (Mayflower Families and Mayflower Families in Progress) published by the Mayflower Society, to which we have added value, by looking up and adding the primary sources (inline)