Topic on Talk:Reading/Web/Projects/Related pages/Flow

The inconsistencies highlighted here should be resolved by the completion of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T122030 - please subscribe to this task if interested!

As per comments I left in Phabricator at :

1 - at least in the English Wikipedia, the manual of style calls for sub-headings to use sentence case, that is "Related articles", not "Related Articles". This is a simple fix to change the "A" to a lowercase "a".

2 - The words "Related articles" appear in a slightly different colour and size (and font?) to the other sub-headings. Please make these consistent.

3 - Could you add some words or an icon to visually indicate that, unlike everything else on the page, these three suggestions are machine-generated not manually curated. Wikipedians have gone to a lot of effort over the years to explain to the public that everything on the page is editable, yet this isn't. The design team would probably have good suggestions for how to do that in a clear but unobtrusive way.

+1 for the second item.

@Wittylama

#1,2 I think the intention here was to specifically maintain that this was not part of the article, but rather a feature of the website: "done with that article? then check these out!", which is why the style is different. However, that might be a bad distinction to make, given that it is editable and that there is a similiar in-article section.

#3, this might be moot. As @Jdlrobson pointed out, the feature is editable. I actually hoped to launch this feature without the ability to edit, in part because any edits will not be reflected in the app version (which use the api). However, we had a mix-up here in the factory and ended up launching with that configuration set to true. Curious--do you feel that ability is beneficial, problematic, 'meh'?

Regarding 1 and 2, I can see what you mean by making it visually separate - to indicate that it's a different kind of thing. It does, however, look like the visual stylings of the mobile version that have leaked across to the desktop version rather than being "part of" the desktop environment. I'm not a designer, but currently it just doesn't look like it belongs - either to the main body of the article or to the interface area around the article. It looks... separate. I guess what I'm saying is that it should be one or the other, but not some third design style all of its own.

Regarding 3: I don't understand... If the three suggestions in the "related articles" box are manually editable, what's their purpose at all? Doesn't that just make it acomplete duplication of the "See also" section? Either this feature should be a clever automatic suggestion mechanism, or it should be a way to surface suggestions for editors to manually add to the "see also" section - but having a separate section at the very bottom that is also manually editable is, to be frank, redundant.

If the goal is to make the suggestions easily modifiable by editors, then why is this a reader-facing tool at all? Wouldn't a "here's some articles the system thinks would be good as 'see also' links" service be best delivered as a bot - making recommendations to editors?