Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did.
The question about draft on reconstitution arithmetic that I actually want answered is the second one below. The first is context and I have kept it short.
Both are stated with units, and I have said what I already checked so that nobody repeats it.
Answering the question the opening post raises rather than the one it answers.
Trying to state the draft on reconstitution arithmetic position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Draft on reconstitution arithmetic is worth one more sentence than it usually gets, and the sentence is the one about how the number was arrived at.
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.
Worth reading the earlier posts in this thread before acting on mine.
Everything in post #5 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Second maintainers matter. A single maintainer is a single point of failure and every document here that went stale had one.
Narrowing post #5, because the general version has more than one answer.
Distinguishing three things in the draft on reconstitution arithmetic discussion that keep getting used interchangeably: the observation, the proposed mechanism, and the recommendation that gets attached to both.
Post #5 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the draft on reconstitution arithmetic data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.
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.
Adding this to the thread rather than to the wiki, because I am not confident enough for the wiki.
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. The claim about a named supplier was not accompanied by a batch, a date, a method or a document, which R6 requires.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
What I would tell a new member reading about draft on reconstitution arithmetic for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
Taking post #14 at face value and following it one step further.
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.
The uncertainty is in the assumption, not in the calculation.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
The short version is the first sentence; the rest is why.
Adding the measurement that post #18 says would settle it.
Draft on reconstitution arithmetic looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
Post #21 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
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.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.
Fine by me. I had wanted a stronger conclusion and there is not one available.
Summarising the draft on reconstitution arithmetic thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
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.
The arithmetic in post #25 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
What I can speak to on draft on reconstitution arithmetic is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
Post #29 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.