I think this is reasonable if we're putting the current extension up for production without the preview- are we?

At the moment, Citoid's building a citation from a URL is wrong at least 75% of the time. (I'd have said "close to 100%, but I was surprised the other day to see a NY Times citation built that looked fully correct.) By "wrong" I mean that the article title includes the publisher, or one or more of the six suggested fields (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web#TemplateData ) are not filled in when in fact information is available at the URL.

If that percentage is accurate, then at least three of four times, the user is will need to click "Edit" to go back into the citation to fix it, if in fact he/she realizes it's incomplete or wrong, to fix it. That's not a very smart editor.

I do understand the desire to minimize mouse clicks. Perhaps a compromise: If all required and suggested fields are filled in by Citoid, then return the user to the full edit window (and display the citation in popup); otherwise, display all required and suggested fields, whether filled or not, and let the user decide when the citation is fully built.

With this "middle" approach, the button now labeled "Insert" might be initially labeled "Create", and if then (if the dialog remains open, with some fields now filled in) the button might be labeled "Done".

Just to avoid confusion: When John says "At the moment" (more than two months ago), he was talking about using a makeshift script that allowed him to test Citoid. In that script, which designed for testing during early development only, there was no built-in opportunity for seeing or reviewing the citation. The script just inserted whatever it found. The user experience with the actual product (released about six weeks after his comment) is completely different.