peer_reviewed_article: different labels for comments and sub-comments #213

Closed

laurensmartina wants to merge 1 commit from article-sub-comment-label into master

laurensmartina commented

2019-02-16 09:09:25 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Users can distinguish between comments and sub-comments.

giplt (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-02-16 09:09:25 +00:00

dianawi (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-02-16 09:09:25 +00:00

matthijskooijman (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-02-18 17:38:40 +00:00

matthijskooijman (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

Code looks fine. I do wonder:

Should review comments not distinguish between new/existing?
Is "sub-comment" a clear term to use? My first thought would be something like "new discussion" vs "reply" or something, but that might not be ideal.
The art-sub-comment vs art-add-sub-comment string ids do not seem so clear to me. Perhaps they should be a bit more descriptive? E.g. art-join-conversation and art-speak-out or art-comment-field-label or something like that?

Code looks fine. I do wonder: - Should review comments not distinguish between new/existing? - Is "sub-comment" a clear term to use? My first thought would be something like "new discussion" vs "reply" or something, but that might not be ideal. - The `art-sub-comment` vs `art-add-sub-comment` string ids do not seem so clear to me. Perhaps they should be a bit more descriptive? E.g. `art-join-conversation` and `art-speak-out` or `art-comment-field-label` or something like that?

tammoterhark (Migrated from github.com) reviewed

2019-02-23 11:40:29 +00:00

tammoterhark (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

We have review comments (for logged in crew only) and reader comments (submittable and readable by not-logged-in visitors).

They are available on two levels:

As a direct respons/comment of the article
As a contribution to the dialogue (= reponse to an initial comment)

As a distiction between the first two categories we now use:
review-comment
art-comment (possibly better: reader-comment, since we may decide to add reader comments to other page type than just article)

And for the second category we now (debatably) use:
comment and sub-comment

Since we only want to use two levels, I think this distinction is ok, which the above mentioned (IMHO) improvement.

review-comment-add
review-comment-add-sub
reader-comment-add
reader-comment-add-sub

add-review-comment
add-sub-review-comment
add-reader-comment
add-sub-reader-comment

No preference by me. Does this fit in any convention we now use or may adept?

We have **review comments** (for logged in crew only) and **reader comments** (submittable and readable by not-logged-in visitors). They are available on two levels: 1. As a direct respons/comment of the article 2. As a contribution to the dialogue (= reponse to an initial comment) As a distiction between the first two categories we now use: review-comment art-comment (possibly better: reader-comment, since we may decide to add reader comments to other page type than just article) And for the second category we now (debatably) use: comment and sub-comment Since we only want to use two levels, I think this distinction is ok, which the above mentioned (IMHO) improvement. review-comment-add review-comment-add-sub reader-comment-add reader-comment-add-sub OR add-review-comment add-sub-review-comment add-reader-comment add-sub-reader-comment No preference by me. Does this fit in any convention we now use or may adept?

dianawi commented

2019-03-06 21:13:37 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I prefer the last. Nice if it resembles a readable sentence.

dianawi commented

2019-03-06 21:19:33 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I had already introduced line "art-discussion" => "join the discussion" in the language files, line 327, for the same purpose. This gives the reader a choice whether they want to comment on the article or join an existing discussion.

tammoterhark commented

2019-03-30 09:23:04 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I am a bit lost. How to proceed? Discussion, @dianawi ?

matthijskooijman commented

2019-04-08 21:12:53 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

PR #228 says it replaces this one. I haven't reviewed that one yet, though.