-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 160
Conversation
...docs-stakingv4-updates
@mariusmihaic
mariusmihaic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Whole text needs to be rephrased and grammatically corrected by running it through a rephrasing app, like chatGPT
- We could write more straight-forward user friendly/helpful information instead of using lots of pompous words to describe a simple process, which actually describes nothing meaningful
- Some technical debt information proposed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
[general]
- I suggest you run this whole text through chatGPT or any rephrasing tool available out there and rephrase it.
- Spaces/indentations seem wrong
- Name of the png files are not consistent with existing ones
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Will rewrite it as suggested
- What are the rules for spaces/indentations?
- Renamed all the .png files as seen in the existing examples using all lower case and hyphen instead of spaces.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- 120 max characters per line before new line. Your lines are randomly interrupted
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Those numbers are ideal, although can be used as referenced...
- I personally don't understand how auction list has anything to do with security, but that's just my opinion. If you want to keep it for marketing purposes, be it, not my call. cc @schimih
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we can use it in Security but let's see if @schimih agrees.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Again, technically incorrect, can stay as it is though for marketing if that's what we want....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This somehow suggests that it's wrong to have lots of egld staked...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure why it is understood like that, we could ask @schimih or @iulianpascalau to give us their views as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What is the difference between ## Waiting List & ## Waiting Status? they are the same thing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rewrote this section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- You didn't re-write the text.
- Waiting list & Waiting status are the same thing explained twice, why do we need both?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this chapter? Feels like it adds a lot of confusion. Cand be interpreted as if the system is "playing" with your own stake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I rewrote it a bit, if you still think it is not bringing value we can remove it.
I added it for full transparency, perhaps a total rework of the concept description would help?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @schimih
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Where is this mechanism showed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rewrote this section a bit, but as with the Automatic Node Qualification we could remove it entirely if it does not bring any usefulness.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
cc @schimih I would delete both of them
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please revert back these deleted lines, otherwise the next chapters don't have a "seamless logic" continuation.
I understand that the document was written as in "past", for the "future" unfolding events and now it is already in the "past". Simply rephrase as those events have already happened, e.g.:
from : "In the first step, we will completely" -> "In the first step, we have completely removed"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reverted the lines as it was an error they were kept deleted
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We still could've re-wrote the verbs to past tense
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can stay as it is, though, it's fine
@mariusmihaic
mariusmihaic
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- 80% of previous comments were not addressed
- Clarity, conciseness & grammatical errors + chatGpt rephrasing still not done
Description of the pull request (what is new / what has changed)
Did you test the changes locally ?
Which category (categories) does this pull request belong to?