Forgive me for spoiling the hopeful mood, but I'm not so sure the
uneditable review idea would work.
The obvious reason is that in order to write a review about a wikipedia
article, you'd have to be interested in wikipedia in the first place.
So if I'm an academic interested in moving wikipedia along, why should I
bother with a review? It would be less work to make the changes myself.
My name would automatically be associated with the edit on the article's
history page. And even if I write such a review, people would read it
and fix the mistakes and missing issues I found (talking about
duplicated effort here!). So, soon after my review is out, it won't fit
the article anymore, because the article changed. So, all people would
soon find is my outdated (=incorrect) review, with my name below it. No
thanks!
As a to-be-academic, I'd rather have a stable article that says
"...based on [[this article]] at wikipedia, edited by ..." (or "reviewed
by" or "streamlined by";) where there's a backlink to the wikipedia
article, maybe like "For a more current, but unreviewed version, see [[]]".
I might be wrong, and this is the "magic formula", but I don't see many
academics interested in that review function, certainly less than in the
original Nupedia (and even that didn't work...)
Magnus