Hi @Kgraessle, thanks for spotting this. Yes you're right it should be responsive.
We can do:

• from 1024px above:
  • feed 75%
  • other modules 25% (on the right/left depending on language)
• below 1024:
  • feed 100%
  • other modules 100% (stacked below the feed)

Hey @JScherer-WMF, thanks for the ping.
You can enable it on your preferences: at Special:Preferences → User profile → Newcomer editor features → Enable the editor help panel
And then you should see it when you edit an article in VE or Wikitext :)

Discussion offline with @JScherer-WMF in Nov 2024 landed on: we would be hiding Vector 2022's Tools and Appearance menus when entering an edit session with the visual editor with edit check enabled and bring them back once the users return to read mode.

hi @DLynch, this is the expected behavior from the pre-save moment when the user interacts with Tone Check:

1. tap revise from within pre-save
2. arrive into mid edit with text you added, and tone check was activated in response to, highlighted in gray with cursor placed in document
3. Edit Check card appears ("instructional" version in Mid-Edit via Pre-Save)
   • if someone taps "ok, understood" without changing the text in anyway and proceeds back to pre-save, tone check is shown again
   • if someone taps "ok, understood" and does change the text in anyway and proceeds back to pre-save, tone check is shown again IF revised text is still flagged as promotional
   • if someone doesn't taps "ok, understood" and does change the text in ways that aren't flagged as promotional as they leave the editing area, the card disappears

Thanks so much Debra! Very curious to hear more about the AI part you mentioned.
Looking forward to our call, Daisy!

Per offline conversation with @ppelberg, we decided to keep the unfocused Check(s) in gray to emphasize the active Check (in yellow), as pictured in the mock below:

Proposal:
We would have the following message with the first sentence in bold red-error color token with the appropriate error icon, followed by the description in base-black color and a link to documentation on Citoid's supported formats.

We couldn’t create a citation for you.
Learn more about the formats we support
or create one manually below.

Thanks for the ping @JScherer-WMF. I agree with everything you said. My main concern with the user icon usage would be that it could cause some confusion on which user's page it is (i.e. in a scenario where person 1 is looking at person 2's talk page, whose page would this link to?). I would lean towards either removing the link altogether or using the username link as you suggested – although having the username link there could also be a bit confusing given that on the non-sticky header (i.e. the step prior) this is approximately the location where we have the active user's username link. So probably removing the link (article icon) would be the best option.
cc @ppelberg

that makes sense @Jdlrobson, @background-color-success-subtle seems better than yellow for sure – we could even consider @background-color-progressive-subtle if we could consider the success feedback to be too prominent.
(cc @bmartinezcalvo @DTorsani-WMF)

Thanks for the ping, @JScherer-WMF.
Your approach sounds good to me.

+1, sounds good to me.

Thank you all for your feedback!
Yes, I agree with using a color from Codex for the timestamps. After discussing with Design Systems team members, we should use Gray500 #72777d to keep the distinction with the text.

Thanks @Esanders, the patch looks great!
(@Trizek-WMF I logged-in on patchdemo to try it)

I agree @DLynch, and +1 to the later iteration. What would you recommend for the copy?

Hi @MNeisler, thanks for sharing!

@Esanders thanks for sharing the patchdemo – looks great for initial release!

Thanks for all your responses @Jdlrobson, I agree with you and @Samwalton9-WMF on your points.

Hi @Jdlrobson & @JScherer-WMF (thanks for the ping!), I’d be curious to learn more about the historical context of the Minerva talk page design – assuming the buttons were designed purposefully, whether for increased accessibility (tap targets) or other reasons. Therefore, I’d lean towards keeping them – and eventually, potentially reconsider the design on Vector to map to this as well.
Similar to how the “reply” tool came to exist as a button, it’d be interesting to see how this page UX could be enhanced in the future.
Regarding the definition of the buttons, I’d assume these fit since they perform actions (thanking the editor, undoing the edit) unlike the others which are links (transporting you to the user’s talk page, diff, etc).

Could we re-use the existing messaging from desktop on mobile?

hi @kostajh & @aishwaryavardhana, apologies for missing your comments.

After discussion on Slack and with @ppelberg, we've decided to move forward with the following option including a normal-progressive button:

Here's the updated, latest version of the mock-up design for the Reporting page. [1]

Looks great, thank you @Esanders & @ppelberg.
Moving to Ready for sign off.

Great point, thank you @Esanders – I agree with the new alignment you're proposing.

@ppelberg the above responses look great to me with the single caveat that "common knowledge" might be a) paradoxically not universal and b) hard to translate into other languages (it would be slightly wordy in French for instance: "de notoriété publique"). In light of that, what do you think of changing that to "widely known" / "commonly accepted" or something else along those lines?

Thanks for your feedback and flagging those @ppelberg.

Thanks @Esanders, this looks great for MVP.
@ppelberg I'm assigning to you for next steps.

@Esanders At the moment let's only apply the debounce time for desktop.

Following an offline conversation with @ppelberg, we decided to use the message shared above by @RHo[1] with a small change in the second sentence to emphasize the notification aspect of future edits instead of credit:

You are not logged in. Once you make an edit, a temporary account will be created for you. Learn more.
Log in or Create an account to get notified about your edits and to access other features.

Thanks a lot for your feedback @RHo & @ppelberg – these are all great points!

What about this option?

Thanks a lot for your feedback, @kostajh!

Here are a few options for different UX copies that are being explored – what do you all think?

@MNeisler I just added the new UX desktop flow to the Miro board for Edit Check Measurement

Thanks @Esanders & @ppelberg, here are the latest requirements: