Promotion criteria, and the one that stops most nominations posts 121–147

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.

Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.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 #122, 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.

post #124 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

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Promoted topic withdrawal: if a promoted topic becomes outdated or inaccurate and the maintainer does not update, requesting withdrawal is appropriate.

New maintainer recruitment: if a page's maintainer is inactive and updates are needed, suggesting a new maintainer here can help transition responsibility.

post #128 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.

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 #126 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

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.

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.

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.

Worth separating two things that post #129 runs together.

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.

post #133 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Interdependencies: if updating one page requires updating related pages, posting that connection here helps the maintainers see the scope of work.