Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — what changed since posts 31–51
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
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.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
Worth separating two things that post #32 runs together.
Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.
This follows post #32 rather than contradicting it.
Draft on reconstitution arithmetic is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for.
Post #35 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Adding the boring version of draft on reconstitution arithmetic, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.
Before the thread moves on from draft on reconstitution arithmetic — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.
Answering the question post #35 raises rather than the one it answers.
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.
The arithmetic in post #39 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
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.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
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.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Post #38 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
Review the scope as well as the content. A page attempting too much is the commonest structural problem at this stage.
Building on post #44 rather than restating it.
The arithmetic on draft on reconstitution arithmetic is the easy part and it is where the errors are, which is an uncomfortable combination. Show your working and someone will catch it.
Post #42 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
The most useful reply I ever got about draft on reconstitution arithmetic was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
This topic was referenced in
- Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — the long versionDocumentation › Doc review · 143 replies
- Follow-up: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?Documentation › Doc review · 2 replies
- Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year onDocumentation › Doc review · 51 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Follow-up: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
The question in the title: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. I would like to know what people here actually do about…
|
2 | 64k | 16mo | |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections — one year on
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…
|
+46 | 51 | 11k | 20h |
|
A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second dataset
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 |
|
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations
Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the criteria…
|
+135 | 146 | 17k | 19mo |
|
Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
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 |
Related topics — sharing the tags promoted to docs, wiki post, review date
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Requesting a translation of an existing page — the long version
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 |
|
[2026 update] Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed
Citation sweep results: how many references did not say what was claimed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of Citation…
|
+41 | 45 | 47k | 12mo |
|
A request that was declined, and the reasoning — a second dataset
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 |
|
An orphaned page with no inbound links — the long version
Posting this under the heading it deserves: An orphaned page with no inbound links — the long version Everything below is what sits behind that. A narrow question about orphaned page, deliberately narrow,…
|
+14 | 18 | 21k | 10mo |
|
Request: export my own posts — one year on
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 |