Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
Proposing that draft on reconstitution arithmetic deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting the skeleton here so that the argument about scope happens before the writing rather than after.
What I think belongs on it, what does not, and the three claims that would need a citation each.
Confirming the opening post from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
Draft on reconstitution arithmetic would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Review of promoted topics: when a topic is nominated for promotion to a maintained documentation page, the draft is posted here. Community review happens before promotion. Objections are welcome.
The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.
A note on scope: what I am saying about draft on reconstitution arithmetic applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
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.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
I had written a reply contradicting post #9 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
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.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Not the answer, but possibly the question that gets there.
Coming back to post #12, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Agreed on draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
Ask what the page would look like if it were wrong. A document with no stated failure conditions is hard to review and harder to maintain.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Review the scope as well as the content. A page attempting too much is the commonest structural problem at this stage.
Confirming post #21 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
On draft on reconstitution arithmetic I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Post #21 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
I would call the community position on draft on reconstitution arithmetic likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards.
It cost nothing to check and would have cost something not to.