Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.
The most useful review comment names a sentence and says what is wrong with it. General approval and general concern are both hard to act on.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
This follows post #35 rather than contradicting it.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.
Post #42 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Nothing in a maintained document is medical advice and the review should confirm the page says so where it matters rather than only in a footer.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Read the full topic (48 posts)
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
The question in the title: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what people here actually do about…
|
2 | 64k | 16mo | |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |
|
Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I would like to know what people here actually do about review cadence, as distinct from…
|
+20 | 24 | 20k | 15mo |
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version
On the subject in the title: Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A narrow question about Promotion criteria, deliberately…
|
+130 | 143 | 7.2k | 6mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about draft on reconstitution…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version
On the subject in the title: Merging two pages that cover the same ground — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. Bringing the figures rather than the impression, since a process question…
|
+5 | 9 | 209 | 20mo |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. The question about draft on reconstitution…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of Citation…
|
+41 | 45 | 47k | 12mo |
|
Splitting an overlong document into two
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Splitting an overlong document into two Everything below is what sits behind that. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on splitting an overlong…
|
+30 | 34 | 6.2k | 1d |
|
About the Feature requests category
Requests for platform and documentation features, with the reasoning that justifies them. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
4 | 28k | 9mo |