Posting this under the heading it deserves: Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that.
What changes if the standard account of draft on reconstitution arithmetic is wrong? I ask because I have been treating it as settled and I noticed this week that I could not say why.
Working through the consequences rather than the evidence, since others here are better placed on the evidence.
Narrowing the opening post, because the general version has more than one answer.
Objections are genuinely wanted at this stage, because a bad promotion is much harder to undo than a bad reply.
Same experience here, different supplier, so it is at least not unique to one of them.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
This is the sort of thing that ought to be settled and apparently is not.
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.
Two sources, same conclusion, and I could not rule out that one copied the other.
Confirming post #8 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards.
I had written a reply contradicting post #6 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
I would hold that lightly until someone with a larger sample weighs in.
Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.
Adding the measurement that post #13 says would settle it.
Adding a reference point for draft on reconstitution arithmetic. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
I had written a reply contradicting post #13 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Nothing in a maintained document is medical advice and the review should confirm the page says so where it matters rather than only in a footer.
That has held every time I have looked, which is not the same as always.
Confirming post #13 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
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 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.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
One more thing on draft on reconstitution arithmetic 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.
Since draft on reconstitution arithmetic keeps coming up, it should probably be a maintained page rather than a recurring thread. I am happy to draft it if someone with more direct experience will review it.
Fair, and the limits you put on it are the part I will remember.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
On post #21 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Post #22 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Ask what the page would look like if it were wrong. A document with no stated failure conditions is hard to review and harder to maintain.
Written in the hope of being told what I have missed.
Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.
Draft on reconstitution arithmetic came up in a thread eighteen months ago and was answered well. I cannot find it, which is itself the problem, so here is the reconstruction.