There was a lot of talk not too long ago about possibilities of protecting certain high-profile articles which are reasonably "good", in order to prevent various forms of content degredation which happen even with well-meaning editors, much less from vandals and the problems which come up in problematic reverts, etc.
Is there a designated place to discuss this sort of thing?
In my mind, it would make sense to have some sort of "Vote for Freezing" page for articles of this sort. It would be almost the opposite of something like VfD -- an advanced form of FAC, whereby people would vote (and ply some attention on) as to whether an article was good enough to qualify it for this sort of enshrinement. "This article is good enough that it doesn't need people to be able to edit it constantly without discussing changes first," the status of "frozen" would imply. Some standards would need to be developed (a FA which has already run on the main page, another round of peer review, no major rewrites in the past two months, etc.) but it could work out (hopefully). Requests for Unfreezing could be done as well for those who think that an article was problematically frozen in a state which would require more than just the sorts of line edits one can do from a talk page.
So anyway, I'm not caught up on the latest status of this debate, but I think something of this sort might be a good idea, and prevent the sort of incoherence that sneaks into even good articles over a long period of time.
(And before anyone points out that this would make it hard for new users to edit such articles -- that would be the *point* of such a policy, not an unintended consequence. And it would, ideally, focus users away from such articles and onto the legions which still need basic work).
FF