Hello, How about making it so that new page patrollers stamp any biographical-looking page with an {{unchecked bio}} template? Then that becomes another round of article checking that can be done by whoever it is that carries out these repetitive tasks. By making the template sufficiently spammy and legalese ("This article has not been fact checked and may contain serious inaccuracies and even defamatory statements. The Wikimedia foundation explicitly disclaims all responsibility...") you could even kill two birds with one stone.
Steve
Chris Owen wrote (amongst others)
The only variable we *can* really change substantially is the time we have in which to review articles. That's where the change in "failure mode" comes in. Right now, we have literally no time at all to review articles, because as soon as they're published they're in the namespace, and they scroll off the Newpages list within minutes or hours. Putting them in a review queue would give us all the time we needed to review them.
One other point. People are understandably getting jittery about biographies because that's a point of legal vulnerability. But that's missing the point: we just don't have a problem with bad biographies, we have a problem with a broken process that lets in all kinds of bad information, not just biographies. Jimbo's experiment in stopping anonymous editors from creating new articles won't stop that, any more than your proposal of patrolling biographies. The underlying process needs to be fixed, not just a particular category of user privileges or content.