As far as standards go, I would prefer to use the standards of the debaters, but if not I look at the claim and warrant, date, source, any other factors that would seem relevant to compare the evidence. I do not reuire full source cites to be read, although I do like full dates on Clinton and Econ debates where the month and day make a difference. If an evidence challenge was made as far as the context of the evidence, I would stop the round and ask tab how best to proceed. It would be best if the team making the evidence challenge was prepared with the full text of the source so the challenge could be resolved immediately. As far as presentation, I like debaters who are fast, clear, smart, and respectful of others.
Good arguments contain claims and warrants.
Tag team cross-ex is appropriate to make sure all questions are clarified to the greatest extent. I find clipping of evidence inexcusable. It is a threat to the honesty and integrity of the activity. I also think it is important to recognize the appropriate sex of your opponent and refer to them either by name or the corresponding pronoun. I dislike gender exclusive language, that is not to say that I am a proponent of inflexible political correctness, I just think debaters should be concious of their language as this is a communication oriented activity.