In T415321#11549333, @DLynch wrote:

Do we want to use the same copies con checks and suggestions? If yes, we will need to apply the new copies in both check + suggestions card

Just to note, it’s less work to apply to both, because there’s no internal distinction between check and suggestion cards like that. We’d have to go in and make a bunch of changes to be able to have different copy between modes, in fact.

After exploring how we could unify Suggestions (and Checks in some way), I'm proposing the following.

Note that this task is just to update the Suggestions copies, but due that some suggestions are checks from previous edit sessions, it worths reviewing all them at the same time for consistency.

Copy structure

I'm proposing the following copy structure for Checks and Suggestions so they feel part of the same system but with tone differences that clearly communicate the urgency of Checks versus the optional nature of Suggestions. The differences between both are mainly in the Description and the Decline button.

Checks:

More action-oriented and directive, since they signal urgent issues that should be addressed.

• Title: Action-oriented ([Verb] + [object] e.g. “Add a citation”)
• Description: Problem + Action to solve problem
• Link (optional): if needed, we will link to an external page with more information about the Check being described. This link will always appear as a "Learn more" after the description, in order to unify all cards and also to be able to separate the description from the link.
• Question before buttons (optional): Use this question just when there is some more risk in the check (e.g. Paste check)
• Buttons:
  • Primary: using the same verb as in the title
  • Secondary: always Decline, except when needed to respond the button's question (e.g. Paste Check)
• Success message: Specific for each check reinforcing the action completed

Suggestions:

Lighter, benefit-focused language to reinforce they’re optional.

• Title: same as in Checks (we could evaluate using a question mark for all Suggestions to reinforce they are optional, but this could probably be more difficult to translate)
• Description: Problem + Benefit (Help readers…)
• Link (optional): as in Checks, it will always appear if needed after the description in the card, unified as a "Learn more" link.
• Buttons:
  • Primary: same as Check, using the same verb as in the title
  • Secondary: always Skip, to differentiate from Checks and reinforce they are optional improvements
• Success message: Unified message for all suggestions

New copies proposed

I've created this proposal for the copies updates for both Checks and Suggestions (to compare them) using this new structure.

Checks: action oriented copies	Suggestions: explaining benefits and reinforcing optional nature

Title: Action-oriented ([Verb] + [object] e.g. “Add a citation”)

I think this can lead to overly generic labels, for example "Disambiguation link" has become "Update link". As checks display collapsed initially I think it is helpful to know what the check is about from just the title, but "Update link" doesn't tell us much. Also there will be other link-based checks (e.g. Year link/label mismatch) that will have a similar action of "Update link".

Description: Problem + Action to solve problem
Description: Problem + Benefit (Help readers…)

This + the images seem to be proposing different copy between suggestion-mode and regular mode, which I thought we had ruled out?

Secondary: always Decline, except when needed to respond the button's question (e.g. Paste Check)
Secondary: always Skip, to differentiate from Checks and reinforce they are optional improvements

I'd rather keep the same label between the modes. The distinction between those words is subtle enough that I don't think it's worth adding complexity.

Success message: Unified message for all suggestions

Again, it seems simpler to not override existing messages if they're present. (And, again, we'd need to go through and actually make a unified system of how that's handled to have a place to do so.)

I also noticed that you removed the footer from the Tone check in only the suggestions mock. Is that an intentional change?

Per offline discussion, let's use T415849 to define what (if any) copy changes to the current hard-coded English versions we think need to be implemented before the en.wiki beta feature release. This is "Step 1." in the Acceptance criteria.

And let's use this ticket (T414987) for Acceptance Criteria "Steps 2 - 4."

El T414987#11563618, @Esanders escribió:

Title: Action-oriented ([Verb] + [object] e.g. “Add a citation”)

I think this can lead to overly generic labels, for example "Disambiguation link" has become "Update link". As checks display collapsed initially I think it is helpful to know what the check is about from just the title, but "Update link" doesn't tell us much. Also there will be other link-based checks (e.g. Year link/label mismatch) that will have a similar action of "Update link".

I agree "Update link" sounds too generic. But we could use the action oriented format to be more specific: Update generic link or other copy we decide is more accurate for this suggestion.

El T414987#11563859, @DLynch escribió:

Description: Problem + Action to solve problem
Description: Problem + Benefit (Help readers…)

This + the images seem to be proposing different copy between suggestion-mode and regular mode, which I thought we had ruled out?

Secondary: always Decline, except when needed to respond the button's question (e.g. Paste Check)
Secondary: always Skip, to differentiate from Checks and reinforce they are optional improvements

I'd rather keep the same label between the modes. The distinction between those words is subtle enough that I don't think it's worth adding complexity.

Success message: Unified message for all suggestions

Again, it seems simpler to not override existing messages if they're present. (And, again, we'd need to go through and actually make a unified system of how that's handled to have a place to do so.)

There are open conversations about if we should use the same or different copies in Checks and Suggestions. This is something we need to evaluate and decide.

I also noticed that you removed the footer from the Tone check in only the suggestions mock. Is that an intentional change?

Ah no, this was an error sorry, it was not the intention to remove it.

I've included the new structure proposed for suggestions copies in this task's description. Based on conversations with @ppelberg we agreed that, if a link is needed in the card, it should be linked within the description for clarity, since “Learn more” is too generic and doesn’t clearly indicate what it links to.

I've shared the specific copies proposed following this structure in T415849: Define Edit Suggestion card copy for en.wiki Beta Feature release.

RE ExternalLinksEditCheck.js via @Quiddity.

This Suggestion is one of the more complex ones. 
E.g. in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Suggestion_Mode_example_-_external_link.png -- that external link in the caption is going to https://www.ukssdc.ac.uk/wdcc1/msise90.html -- An experienced editor might either:
* Convert it into a reference
* Convert it into a redlink
* Convert it into a direct link to the existing article on the newer calculator, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NRLMSISE-00 
* Delete it

In other instances of External links within the body, it might be appropriate to move the link to the bottom of the article into the ==External links== section. (but usually not)

I've reviewed the copies and they are ready for final review. @ppelberg and @Quiddity to review them

Image Caption
This image does not have a description. [...]

I feel I should point out that captions aren't descriptions. It'd be more accurate to call the "alt text" field a description:

Change #1230949 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] Create message strings for experimental checks

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1230949

Change #1247434 had a related patch set uploaded (by Medelius; author: Esanders):

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@wmf/1.46.0-wmf.18] Create message strings for experimental checks

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247434

This link appears more than once in this section. Help readers navigate the article more easily by removing repeated links.

If I'm not too late on this, it's occurring to me that we might want to remove "the article" here. Removing duplicate links is mainly about helping readers navigate between articles rather than navigate within the article they are reading. So taking this out would both be more accurate and more concise.

Change #1247434 abandoned by Medelius:

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@wmf/1.46.0-wmf.18] Create message strings for experimental checks

Reason:

Messages are already showing up on translatewiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247434

Change #1247631 had a related patch set uploaded (by Medelius; author: Medelius):

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] DuplicateLink EditCheck: update copy

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247631

@Sdkb , I agree with that.

I finished updating the copies yesterday, but I've added a new patch for this.

Change #1247631 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/VisualEditor@master] DuplicateLink EditCheck: update copy

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1247631

In T414987#11666366, @DLynch wrote:

Image Caption
This image does not have a description. [...]

I feel I should point out that captions aren't descriptions. It'd be more accurate to call the "alt text" field a description:

Good spot, @DLynch and +1: T419487