The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.
On the subject in the title: Requesting a page: what makes a good request Working notes rather than a conclusion.
Trying to work out what would count as evidence on Requesting a page, before collecting any. This is the part I usually skip and it is the part that makes the rest useful.
If two explanations predict the same observation, observing it does not help. So: what observation would separate them?
Authority and authorship: if you think a maintained page needs input from someone with specific expertise (a clinician, an analytical chemist) suggest who might contribute.
I would be glad to be shown a cleaner way of putting this.
Confirming post #2 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Flag a page that has drifted: if you notice a maintained page has information that is outdated (dates that have passed, regulatory changes, new evidence) post a flag so the maintainers see it.
The commonest reason a good request stalls is that nobody converted it into a draft. A rough draft attracts editors; a request does not.
Scope creep: if you think a page is attempting too much and should be split into multiple pages, that is a reasonable suggestion.
Post #6 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Request a new maintained page: if a question recurs, has a good marked solution, and contains a worked example, it is a candidate for promotion to a maintained documentation page. Post your nomination in this subcategory with a link to the topic.
That is one dataset and I would not build a rule on it.
Where I part company with post #4, and it is a narrow parting.
Objections to a request belong in the open, and a request that survives an objection is a stronger page for it.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
Narrowing post #6, because the general version has more than one answer.
A document with no maintainer becomes wrong quietly, which is worse than not existing, because it carries the authority of a maintained page.
I would be interested in a counterexample if anyone has one.
Everything in post #7 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
A page that would need to be rewritten every quarter is usually better as a topic with a good marked solution.
Translation suggestions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here helps the maintainers prioritise multilingual work.
Name a willing maintainer in the request. Point three of the criteria stops more nominations than the other three combined.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Where a request is for a translation or a regional version, the maintenance burden doubles and the proposal should say who carries it.
One case, stated as one case.
Useful. I have added it to my own notes with the date on it.
A request is more likely to succeed with a proposed outline attached. "Somebody should write about X" rarely moves; a structure and two sections does.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Adding the measurement that post #19 says would settle it.
Suggesting content for a page: if you know a maintained page is missing something important, post a suggestion with specific content you think should be added.
Speaking for myself and not for anyone else who has posted here.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
Format suggestions: if you think a maintained page could be clearer in its presentation (different section structure, different examples, added graphics) suggest the change.
It is the kind of thing that is obvious once and never again.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
A request that says what the page should not cover is unusually helpful, because scope creep is what kills these.
Marking that as an opinion rather than a finding.
If a request is declined, the reasoning is written down, and it is worth reading because it usually describes a better version of the same idea.