3. The current system with 4 quality levels to represent the proofreading state of a page is not sufficient to represent the diversity of proofreading scenarios. Indeed, there is a distinction to make between the *correctness* of the text and its *formatting*. In the case of a scanned edition which has been OCRed, we do need several passes before reaching a satisfying level of confidence about the correctness of the text as well as a suitable formatting (proper use of the wikicode, etc.). For digital-born documents however, as billinghurst said, we can automatically assume that the extracted text is correct, but that still doesn't mean that the text is correctly formatted and ready to be transcluded in the main namespace. Maybe we should add another level meaning "text is correct, still needs formatting"? Ideally, we should have to scales of quality levels: one dealing with the correctness of the text, and one dealing with its formatting. This would probably be too heavy and confusing though...