I have changed my mind and no longer support inline tagging.  Collecting and inputting the metadata is clerical work.  It is not vital, but a nice dotting of the I's.  Since hidden inline comments afford JJ a reasonable alternative means of reminding JJ, the only reason for visible temp tagging is to recruit clerical help in dotting the Is.  It's a nice hope that folks would say "Hey yeah, I'll pitch in!" but in reality I think it works more like "What's this crap??  Seriously? OK, I'll look up the page/section number just to clean this junk up.  Sheesh."   Meanwhile, the temporary tag could give a casual reader the false impression there is something "wrong" with the tagged statement.  What made me change my mind is the negative impact of that probable psychology (though I done any usability testing data to support my hypothesis)!   

 In contrast, an inline comment is sufficient, with downside only that editor who placed it and any who stumble across know about it.  An optional antidote is a teensy bit of extra clerical work of placing a tickle in the talk page "Article has inline hidden comments starting with 'To complete citation...'.  Please help by searching for that text and completing the citations."   It doesn't recruit (force?) clerical assistance as much as a visible tag, but it will get the job done.  I might add that the incremental extra work will likely be less than the cumulative time spent on this thread.