Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed posts 61–90

I read post #73 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.

This follows post #73 rather than contradicting it.

Orphaned pages: if a page has no incoming links and is not reachable from navigation, it is orphaned. Such pages should either be linked or deprecated.

Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.

Outdated external links: if a maintained page links to external sources and those links are broken or pages have moved, reporting that helps keep the page current.

Coming back to post #77, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Maintainer handovers: if a page's maintainer is inactive and needs a new one, discussing that here can facilitate the transition.

Picking up post #77: that is the part I would want checked first.

For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.

Cross-referencing: if two pages should reference each other but do not, suggesting the cross-reference helps the maintainer see the connection.

I read post #80 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Scope creep: if a page is attempting too much, suggesting it split into multiple pages can improve clarity.

post #82 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.

The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.

Redundancy: if two maintained pages cover largely the same ground, consolidation might improve clarity. Pointing out redundancy helps maintainers see the issue.

Authority: if you think a page needs input from someone with specific expertise, suggesting that person helps the maintainer recruit contributors.

Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.

The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.

post #86 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Evidence synthesis: if you think a page should cover recent evidence or a new development, suggesting specific content helps the maintainer prioritise updates.

On post #84 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Review dates: each maintained page has a review date (the date by which it should be checked). If a page is past its review date, flagging it here alerts the maintainer.

Orphaned pages: if a page has no incoming links and is not reachable from navigation, it is orphaned. Such pages should either be linked or deprecated.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made, discussing it here invites resolution rather than conflict.