This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Everything in post #57 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
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.
It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.
I came in to disagree and I am leaving without a disagreement.
Adding what did not work for me on draft on reconstitution arithmetic, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
It is worth stating the boring hypothesis before the interesting one.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards.
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.
Two sentences on draft on reconstitution arithmetic and then I will stop, because the rest is speculation and the thread is better without mine.
What is documented is narrow. What is inferred from it is broad. The gap between them is where every argument here lives.
Building on post #72 rather than restating it.
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
Happy to be corrected if someone holds better data than mine.
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.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
Post #76 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
A single observation, in a thread that deserves better than single observations.
Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.
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.
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.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Adding the caveat now so it does not have to be extracted later.
This follows post #79 rather than contradicting it.
Speaking only to draft on reconstitution arithmetic as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
The useful distinction on draft on reconstitution arithmetic is between what was measured and what was inferred from it. Both end up in the same sentence and only one of them has error bars.
On post #84 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
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.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
I disagree with the framing of draft on reconstitution arithmetic above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
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.
I have separated what I observed from what I concluded, which does not always happen.