The opening post and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction. 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.
Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.
Proposing that evidence digest deserves a maintained page rather than a recurring topic, and drafting the skeleton here so that the argument about scope happens before the writing rather than after.
What I think belongs on it, what does not, and the three claims that would need a citation each.
Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value.
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.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
Agreed on evidence digest, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
I had written a reply contradicting post #7 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
Adding a source would improve this post and I do not have one to hand.
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.
Evidence synthesis requests: if you think a page should summarise the state of evidence on a question, and you think the information exists but is scattered, suggest how it could be brought together.
That matches what I was told, which is not the same as knowing it.
Where I part company with post #10, and it is a narrow parting.
Adding a reference point for evidence digest. Mine is a single case, collected without controls, and I am posting the method alongside it so it can be discounted appropriately.
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.
The variance between people here is larger than the effect being discussed.
Confirming post #16 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Two people in this thread mean different things by evidence digest and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #14 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The version of evidence digest 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.
Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.
I read post #18 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
A qualification I should have led with rather than closed on.
This follows post #20 rather than contradicting it.
Check that each claim is sourced or explicitly labelled as community practice. Unmarked practice claims read as sourced ones.
Caveat: everything above assumes the paperwork is what it says it is.
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 strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Post #23 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.
For anyone finding this later: the short answer on evidence digest is that it depends on one thing, and the rest of the thread is people identifying which thing.
Evidence digest 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.
Narrowing post #26, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Review the scope as well as the content. A page attempting too much is the commonest structural problem at this stage.
The literature is thinner on this than the confidence in the thread implies.
Before the thread moves on from evidence digest — 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.