"

 Waiting period for autoconfirm is too short 
This doesn't directly deal with the pages the info is on, but rather with those who are editing the pages, and looking at the behaviour of the editor.

One of the things that keeps coming up is the sense of how overly easy it is to get autoconfirmed.

I think (and partly based upon an rfc concerning this) that we should change the 4 days/10 edits to 7 days/20 edits.

The ""urge"" to edit in a way that may be deemed inappropriate (vandalism, etc.) can be cooled at least some.

I've found in dealing with such people, that once a person has to wait past their weekend (whatever days that might be), the urge is often gone and forgotten - typically replaced with other impulsive urges. And many editors have a 5 day school week or work week.

So simply increasing the number of days requirement from 4 to 7 might do wonders, and wouldn't affect those positive editors overly much (especially since admins can now give ""autoconfimed"" out ahead of time at their discretion.

And this would help directly deal with the question about the usefulness/effectiveness of semi-protection might be on low traffic/watched pages. -  
I think it should be an AND requirement, not an OR.  Make them wait AND contribute in the meantime by editing first.  And ensure the 20 edits (count in mainspace only) aren't reverted or deleted.  Yes it may slow down the new page creation... but is that a problem?  
I agree with the idea of raising the threshold for autoconfirmation. Wikipedia talk:User access levels/RFC on autoconfirmed status required to create an article closed in January this year so you could reraise it, but I think I know what the result would be. Increasing the threshold or making it and not or or only measuring mainspace edits would in my view have a better chance of success. ''SpielChequers'' "