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

Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Proposing that evidence digest 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.

Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

The failure mode on evidence digest is boring rather than dramatic. It is almost always the step everyone assumes was done correctly because it is too simple to get wrong.

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.

Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.

I read post #18 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.

Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.

A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.

One more thing on evidence digest that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.

On evidence digest, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.

If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.