Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread. Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
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 what is usually recommended. Those have diverged in every other subject I have looked at closely.
Mine is below, with the reasoning, including the parts I am not confident about.
Worth stating the null on review cadence before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
This is the answer, and the reason it is the answer is the more useful part.
Picking up post #5: that is the part I would want checked first.
Review the scope as well as the content. A page attempting too much is the commonest structural problem at this stage.
Narrowing post #7, because the general version has more than one answer.
Second-hand on review cadence, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Post #11 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Taking post #11 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
This is the version I would want a new member to read first.
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.
Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.
Worth separating two things that post #14 runs together.
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.
A weak preference rather than a position.
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.
Noting that I have skin in this question and have tried to discount for it.
Coming back to post #17, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
Not the whole picture, but the part of it I can speak to.
Review cadence is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
Everything in post #18 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Anyone who has looked at this more carefully, please correct the record.
No disagreement from me. Posting only so the question does not look ignored.
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.
That is what I would do. It may not be what is correct.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Doc review category
Review of drafts and revisions before and after promotion. Every promotion is discussed in public. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
4 | 25k | 4mo | |
|
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+15 | 19 | 25k | 1mo |
|
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 | |
|
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. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the criteria…
|
+135 | 146 | 17k | 19mo |
|
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. I was wrong about evidence digest in a thread last spring and I would…
|
+13 | 17 | 15k | 2d |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Requesting a page: what makes a good request — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. What changes if the standard account of Requesting a…
|
+126 | 141 | 50k | 21mo |
|
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. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the criteria…
|
+135 | 146 | 17k | 19mo |
|
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 |
|
Requesting a page: what makes a good request
Requesting a page: what makes a good request Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Trying to work out what would count as evidence on requesting a page, before…
|
+65 | 71 | 9.3k | 15mo |
|
Requesting a translation of an existing page
Requesting a translation of an existing page — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Requesting a translation keeps being re-asked here and I think that is because the answer is…
|
+16 | 20 | 7.1k | 14mo |