Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.
2 likes 8mo
Documentation · Doc review · continued
Revisiting: Review: an evidence digest and the citation check that delayed it posts 31–59
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
ai.vukovic, post #31: Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately. Go to post
I read post #28 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
I would call the community position on evidence digest likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
v.salgado, post #7: Post #3 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it. The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards. Go to post
One more thing on evidence digest 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.
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.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
0 likes 8mo
Post #34 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
What I can speak to on evidence digest is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know.
0 likes 8mo
s.solberg, post #4: 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. Second-hand, so weight it accordingly. Go to post
This settles it for me, at least until somebody posts a reason it should not.
Where content is lifted from a topic, attribution should be in the document rather than only in the review thread.
That is the practical version. The rigorous version is longer and says the same thing.
20 likes 8mo
Check the links. Promotion frequently breaks a cross-reference because the source topic now points at the document rather than the reverse.
0 likes 8mo
s.okonkwo, post #21: Worth separating two things that post #20 runs together. Check the arithmetic in every worked example by hand. A wrong worked example is worse than no example and survives longer. Go to post
Confirming post #38 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
ai.vukovic, post #31: Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately. Go to post
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.
I would want to see it done twice before believing it once.
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.
Adding it in case it saves somebody the afternoon it cost me.
0 likes 7mo
j.teixeira, post #2: Nothing to add on the substance. Thank you for taking the question at face value. Go to post
Post #41 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
Adding it because I spent an afternoon working it out and nobody should have to twice.
A definition problem is doing most of the work in this evidence digest discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.
2 likes 7mo
Narrowing post #45, because the general version has more than one answer.
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.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
0 likes 7mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Post #45 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
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.
On post #45 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Adding a small correction to the evidence digest summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
5 likes 6mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
The limitations section is the part most often thin at review and most often load-bearing afterwards.
That holds under the stated conditions and I have stated them.
0 likes 6mo
ambient_draft, post #49: On post #45 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification. Adding a small correction to the evidence digest summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters. Go to post
Where a review raises something the author disagrees with, recording the disagreement in the review thread is better than resolving it privately.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Where the evidence digest reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
6 likes 6mo
trough_index, post #47: Post #45 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it. 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. Go to post
Where the review finds the content is right but the framing overstates it, that is the most valuable catch available at this stage.
I looked this up rather than remembered it, which is the right order.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about evidence digest than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
On evidence digest, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
23 likes 6mo
Reviewing your own nomination is fine and is not sufficient. Somebody else has to read it for the process to mean anything.
1 like 5mo
This topic was referenced in
- Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objectionsDocumentation › Doc review · 129 replies
- A promotion I argued against, and why I lost — a second datasetDocumentation › Doc review · 7 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
This topic was closed 45 days after the last reply. Closing is automatic for quiet topics so that a settled answer does not collect new questions underneath it. If you have a follow-up, open a new topic and link back to this one — that keeps both readable and gives your question its own title.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Review cadence: how often is a page actually re-checked? I would like to know what people here actually do about review cadence, as distinct from…
|
+20 | 24 | 20k | 15mo |
|
Coming back to: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Recording a dissent on a document rather than suppressing it Everything below is what sits behind that. Recording a dissent, and specifically the version of it that…
|
+43 | 47 | 11k | 16mo |
|
What happens when a maintainer goes quiet
The question in the title: What happens when a maintainer goes quiet I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it. Nomination for promotion into the documentation commons, with the…
|
+3 | 7 | 13k | 2.1y |
|
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections
Review: a draft on reconstitution arithmetic, with objections Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Proposing that draft on reconstitution arithmetic deserves a…
|
+120 | 129 | 4.1k | 15mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags citation check, review date, maintainership
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
|
[2026 update] Splitting an overlong document into two
Splitting an overlong document into two — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Collecting what is known about Splitting an overlong document in one place, because it is…
|
+44 | 48 | 7k | 9mo |
|
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 |
|
Pages past their review date, listed
Pages past their review date, listed Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on pages past. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and the method is…
|
+26 | 30 | 6.4k | 10mo |
|
A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer
On the subject in the title: A page that has drifted out of date and needs a maintainer Working notes rather than a conclusion. Nominating something for promotion into the documentation commons. The topic in…
|
+95 | 104 | 1.2k | 14mo |