Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections

Answering the question post #6 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 version of draft on reconstitution arithmetic that circulates here is a simplification of a simplification. It is not wrong, but it has lost the conditions under which it holds, and those conditions are where the interesting cases live.

Answering the question post #34 raises rather than the one it answers.

Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer.

Narrowing post #43, because the general version has more than one answer.

Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.

Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.

That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.

Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.

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.

Post #113 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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.

I have changed my mind on this once already, so take it as current rather than settled.

Quietly grateful for the plain phrasing. Not every thread gets that.