Topic summary

Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long version

Documentation › Doc review promoted to docs maintainership citation check wiki post review date

This is a generated summary. It shows the 9 most-liked posts from a topic of 144, in their original order, with the accepted answer included where one exists. It is a reading aid and it will miss nuance — the full topic is the record.

s.poulsenTL3Regular27 May 2025 · edited#6

a.petrov, post #5: Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse. It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing. Go to post

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.

This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.

32 likes in reply to #5 14mo

SHermansenTL2Member11 Jul 2025#24

Where I part company with post #22, and it is a narrow parting.

Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.

33 likes 13mo

taper_tableTL3Regular28 Jul 2025#32

methods_draft, post #26: Worth separating Promotion criteria as a question about the compound from Promotion criteria as a question about the documentation. They get answered by different people and only one of them is answerable here. Go to post

Point three stops most nominations. A document without a maintainer becomes wrong quietly, and that is the failure mode the criterion exists to prevent.

It is one reading of the data and not the only reasonable one.

31 likes in reply to #26 12mo

ca.vermeulenTL228 Aug 2025#48

excursion_check, post #38: Post #37 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit. Careful with the language on Promotion criteria. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method. Go to post

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.

Two people can read the same figure differently here and both be reasonable.

30 likes in reply to #38 11mo

e.halonenTL225 Sep 2025#63

s.rasmussen, post #17: Coming back to post #16, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer. Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work. That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close. Go to post

A note on how Promotion criteria gets discussed rather than on Promotion criteria itself: the confident posts get the replies and the careful ones get ignored, and the careful ones have been right more often.

30 likes in reply to #17 10mo

BuchholzTL2Member24 Oct 2025#80

Post #77 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

Promotion criteria has been discussed here with more heat than it deserves, mostly because two definitions have been in play the whole time.

29 likes 9mo

ro.friskTL23 Nov 2025#86

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

One more caveat and then I will stop qualifying: the sample selected itself.

31 likes 9mo

s.solbergTL211 Dec 2025 · edited#110

Post #107 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

The claim about Promotion criteria upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".

29 likes 8mo

GEldridgeTL3Regular19 Dec 2025#115

Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.

That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.

32 likes in reply to #38 7mo

Read the full topic (144 posts)

This topic was referenced in

Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objectionsDocumentation › Doc review · 129 replies
Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed itDocumentation › Doc review · 17 replies

Suggested topics

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections Documentation › Doc review wiki post promoted to docs citation check 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…	+120	129	4.1k	15mo
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Documentation › Doc review maintainership promoted to docs citation check Solved 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
About the Doc review category Documentation › Doc review wiki post promoted to docs citation check Pinned Wiki 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
Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it Documentation › Doc review citation check review date promoted to docs wiki post 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
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet Documentation › Doc review wiki post citation check maintainership promoted to docs Solved The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the…	+3	7	13k	2.1y

Related topics — sharing the tags promoted to docs, maintainership, citation check

Topic	Participants	Replies	Views	Activity
Request: export my own posts — one year on Meta › Feature requests site feedback wiki post translation Request: export my own posts — one year on — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about export. Everyone quotes the same figure…	+61	70	14k	4mo
Request: export my own posts Meta › Feature requests translation site feedback wiki post Posting this under the heading it deserves: Request: export my own posts Everything below is what sits behind that. I have spent a fortnight trying to pin export down and I want to set out where I have got…		2	57k	6mo
Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long version Documentation › Wiki requests promoted to docs wiki post review date maintainership Closed Posting this under the heading it deserves: Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. Requesting a translation keeps being re-asked here and I…	+2	6	5.4k	3mo
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Documentation › Wiki requests maintainership promoted to docs wiki post Closed A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Process question about how this site works. I have read the…	+89	98	31k	11mo
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset Documentation › Doc review citation check promoted to docs wiki post A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on promotion. It is mine, it is…	+3	7	32k	12h