This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Post #28 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
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.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Reading this draft on reconstitution arithmetic thread as someone who came in with a fixed view: the third and seventh replies moved me and the confident ones did not.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.
If it helps: the failure mode here is usually boring rather than dramatic.
Review the scope as well as the content. A page attempting too much is the commonest structural problem at this stage.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.
Answering the question post #34 raises rather than the one it answers.
Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.
I read post #39 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Small methodological point on draft on reconstitution arithmetic: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
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.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Taking post #43 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
The honest answer is that it depends, and here is what it depends on.
Everything in post #43 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
A review date is a commitment rather than a formality, and a shorter cycle for a fast-moving subject is the whole point of setting it deliberately.
Happy to be the one who is wrong here if it settles the question.
Narrowing post #43, because the general version has more than one answer.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
The mechanism is plausible, which is not the same as established.
Confirming post #48 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Take it as a starting point and not as a specification.
Confirming post #50 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The confident answers on draft on reconstitution arithmetic and the well-sourced answers are not the same answers, which is the most useful thing I have learned reading this category.
I had written a reply contradicting post #48 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where I have landed on draft on reconstitution arithmetic, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.
The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
The four criteria are that the question recurs, that the content is correct and sourced or labelled as community practice, that somebody will be named as maintainer with a review date, and that no unresolved substantive objection stands.
It reads as pedantry until the day it does not.
Where I part company with post #52, and it is a narrow parting.
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.
Noted, and I have changed what I was going to do on the strength of it.
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.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
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.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.