2015-08-11 13:18 GMT+02:00 zdzislaw <zdzislaw.wiki@gmail.com>:

2015-08-11 11:28 GMT+01:00 Nicolas VIGNERON <vigneron.nicolas at gmail.com>:
> Then it seems that the quality level has not the same meaning on
> every wikisources. Typo such as « rn » intead of « m » are usually
> removed on the red or yellow step on fr.ws (and such obvious error
> can be seen before editing, reviewing the final render code seems enough to me).
on pl ws it should be done on "without text" -> red step

Ok, we totally agree.
 
> for me all typo should be gone at the previous stage (and
> personally, I don't go from red to yellow if there is still such typo mistakes).
should be... but statistically on red-> yellow step I find 2-4 typos, on yellow-> green step - 1-2 typos (on fr ws too); if on yellow-> green step I could not found any typos, I do not change its status immediately, leave it on another day to be sure.

Again we agree.
 
I'll write it again ... that is not safe to validate a page without reviewing its wikicode.

Are I'm puzzled: why?

A BGB at the end of the PREVIEW(!) content in Page namespace WITHOUT displaying and reviewing wikitext content (raw code) it's a bad proposal, declining the quality of proofreading process results, and... I do not think so that "it's unrealistic to expect the raw code to be review for all page"

Strange... Are you against VisualEditor too?
And what can you see on the raw code that you can't see on the rendered code? (obviously not typo and <center> vs. <div align="center"> is not important for validation page by page).

What do you call « preview content » ?

for that kind of "edition" it should be special level "pseudovalidate" - best in pink.

I think you confusing validation and tool for validation. All edition tools are equal, either by the usual interface, by a customed interface, by VisualEditor (one day...), by AWB, by API, or by a BGB. The tool is mostly irrelevant, what matters is what is changed (or not).

Cdlt, ~nicolas