This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Picking up post #58: that is the part I would want checked first.
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.
Coming back to post #60, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
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.
Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.
post #66 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
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.
Practical note that does not fit anywhere else. Whatever you conclude from this topic, write down what you did and when. The single most useful thing in your own records is not any individual result; it is that they are dated and consecutive.
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.
On post #67 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
post #71 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
I disagree with the reply above, and I think the disagreement is substantive rather than terminological.
The distinction being drawn does not survive when you look at the published data for this specific question. I would be glad to be shown wrong on this, because the version I am arguing against is more convenient.
Citation checking: if a maintained page cites a paper, the citation should match what the paper actually says. If you notice a mismatch, post it here.
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.
New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.
post #80 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Citation checking: if a maintained page cites a paper, the citation should match what the paper actually says. If you notice a mismatch, post it here.
Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.
Coming back to post #82, because the follow-up matters more than the original 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.
Multilingual versions: if a maintained page should exist in another language, suggesting it here with your willingness to help translate can make it happen.
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.
This follows post #84 rather than contradicting it.
Revision disputes: if you disagree with an edit a maintainer made to a page, discuss it here. The goal is accuracy and clarity, not authorship.
I read post #86 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
For anyone arriving from a search: the marked solution above is the direct answer, and the replies underneath it add the caveats that make it safe to use.