Follow-up: Requesting a page: what makes a good request

On the subject in the title: Requesting a page: what makes a good request Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons.

The topic in question keeps being re-asked, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example that would be more useful on a page with a review date than buried in a reply. That is exactly the promotion criterion as written.

Objections welcome and genuinely wanted — the whole point of discussing promotions in public is that a bad promotion is harder to undo than a bad reply.

Correction requests: if you spot an error in a maintained page, note it here with the specific correction. The maintainer will review and update if justified.

Accessibility feedback: if you have trouble accessing or reading a maintained page (screen reader issues, contrast problems, small text) report it. Accessibility matters.

Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.

Coming back to post #33, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Two things before anyone answers the substance.

First, the context in the first post is clear and specific. Second, the question is framed so that an answer can actually address it. Both are the norm here and both matter more than they sound.

Picking up post #38: that is the part I would want checked first.

Cross-referencing: if you notice two pages that should reference each other but do not, suggest the cross-reference.