**(1)** The fields correctly intercept invalid value such as `0.002` - the warning appears. But the suggested values (from the value selector at the end of the field) include negative values.
{F43705749}
Another example of handling numbers in the fields - large numbers are accepted and converted to scientific notation:
{F43709257}
**(4)** **Mentorship** section in Special:EditGrowthConfig has information that is not present on Special:CommunityConfiguration/Mentorship
|{F43708249}| {F55035700}
- Special:EditGrowthConfig has "Know more about how mentorship works" link to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/FAQ#Mentorship
- probably would be good to have links to "Special:EnrollasMentor" and "Special:ClaimMentee"
**(5) ** The fields occupy the whole page width (Special:EditGrowthConfig limits the fields length).
**(6)** @Tacsipacsi comment T354463#9674654
>>! In T354463#9671719, @Etonkovidova wrote:
> {F43702086}
>I noticed two differences that I’m not sure if they are intentional:
>
>* The //(optional)// text is bold. In both designs in the description, it has a normal weight.
>* The summary box is huge. In one design, it’s a two-line textbox, in the other one, it’s a one-line input; in the implementation, it’s eight lines >tall. This gives the impression that the edit summary can be however long I want it to be (and indeed, nothing on the frontend prevents me >from writing an over 1000 characters long summary, even though the backend (MW core) caps the summary at 500 characters).
>
> Two minor questions:
> - on submitting edits in VE, there is a footer with legal clause with links to licensees and to the Terms of Use. Do we need a link to the Terms of Use in the Edit Summary too?
> - the placement of the Reminder is the same as for the footer for saving edits which might confuse those users who used to see different footer.
>
> What if both messages were displayed below each other, with the Reminder being above and maybe on a grey background (like the checkboxes in VE)? Especially the color difference would stress that this is not just the usual stuff.
>
**(7)** from T357710#9733651
- The list of suggestions displays the titles in black, not in blue (as links) as they are displayed in produciton:
|`eswiki beta`| production
|---|---
|{F48184804}|{F48185060}
- the text field doesn't have the input text placeholder
- the invalid input (no matching pages) has no indication that it's invalid
|`eswiki beta`| production
|---|---
|{F48185431} {F48185886} |{F48185663} {F48185801}
**(8)** The first field on Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits -** Infobox templates** in its current implementation doesn't have links
- to Special:NewcomerTasksInfo
- to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Growth/Personalized_first_day/Structured_tasks/Add_an_image
Figma design has such links.
|[[ https://es.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Especial:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits | eswiki beta ]]| [[ https://www.figma.com/file/bT1O4TChNV5TpwF5JHgKAK/Community-Configuration-2.0?type=design&node-id=1229-33012&mode=design | figma design ]]| [[ https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:EditGrowthConfig&uselang=en| eswiki wmf.1]]
|---|---|---
|{F55036490}|{F48141728} | {F48139013}
**(9)** Should "Give feedback" option be on every module page?
{F55036549}
**(10)** (will be addressed in {T361324}- see in the **DONE** section below) and **(11)** are from this comment - T360471#9831541
**(11)** there are two fields added to the end of [[ https://es.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Especial:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits | Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits ]] page - **Weight of underlinked articles** and **Minimum required link score**. Those fields are not present on [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EditGrowthConfig | Special:EditGrowthConfig]] or in [[ https://www.figma.com/design/bT1O4TChNV5TpwF5JHgKAK/Community-Configuration-2.0?node-id=2082-18032&t=aCfih0XaRhu6qTuP-0 | the figma design ]]. Such fields might require some technical knowledge and an additional understanding of a suggested link algorithm - is it expected from admin users?
=== DONE ===
✅ ** DONE (2)** Do we need single quotes around Mentorship? - the single quotes are removed as part of T361933
{F43707930}
✅ ** DONE (3) ** `x` (in the above screenshot) I didn't find the presence of this control in [[ https://www.figma.com/file/bT1O4TChNV5TpwF5JHgKAK/Community-Configuration-2.0?type=design&node-id=1581-6799&mode=design&t=gM1N7UEC424e6TLB-0 | figma design]]
✅ ** DONE (10)** - will be addressed in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T361324
**Add a link** section
Currently in production two add link tasks (structured and un-structured types) have the same title: **Add links between articles**. [[ https://www.figma.com/design/bT1O4TChNV5TpwF5JHgKAK/Community-Configuration-2.0?node-id=2082-18032&t=aCfih0XaRhu6qTuP-0 | The figma design ]] also uses the same title for both type of tasks (to differentiate them two icons are used). On [[ https://es.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Especial:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits | Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits ]] two different titles are used - **Add links between articles** and **Add a link** - was it documented somewhere that there would be two different titles?
The robot icon was used to differentiate between structured (algorithm-suggested) tasks and others - in betalabs the robot icon was not present.