Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it

On the subject in the title: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it 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.

New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.

post #2 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.

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.

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.

I read post #4 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made to a page, discuss it here. The goal is accuracy and clarity, not authorship.

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.

Citation checking: if a maintained page cites a paper, the citation should match what the paper actually says. If you notice a mismatch, post it here.

Picking up post #6: that is the part I would want checked first.

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.

Coming back to post #8, 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.

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

Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.

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.