Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations

Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

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.

Fact-checking: if you see a factual claim in a maintained page that you have evidence contradicts, post the evidence here. The maintainer will review and correct if you are right.

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.

Fact-checking: if you see a factual claim in a maintained page that you have evidence contradicts, post the evidence here. The maintainer will review and correct if you are right.

Picking up post #74: that is the part I would want checked first.

Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.

post #81 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.

Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.

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.

post #128 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Review date disputes: if a maintained page's review date is approaching and it has not been updated, post a note so the maintainers notice.