TLDR Post-Mortem I failed a reopen review audit because I neglected to extend the benefit-of-the-doubt to the OP of a relevant question about an interesting new language, but instead treated him like some noob who wants the rest of us to answer his basic homework questions. I might solve this by reviewing fewer questions, other questions, or taking a bit longer, perhaps stopping for a while when noise to signal seems too high, because maybe SNR isn't actually so bad, and I'm just fatigued.
-- Original post below --
Is there a way to pass a primitive parameter by reference in Dart? is a reopen audit review question, intended to test whether the volunteer reviewer is "paying attention", i.e. robo-reviewing.
Here is the body of the review audit question, in case some people can't see the link:
I would like to pass a primitive (int, bool, ...) by reference. I found a discussion about it (paragraph "Passing value types by reference") here: value types in Dart, but I still wonder if there is a way to do it in Dart (except using an object wrapper) ? Any development ?
This question features:
- no source code, neither problematic code nor what he's tried to pass parameters by ref
- a link, but no quotations from it that might help -- or at least avoid link rot
The close reason provided was "unclear what you are asking".
This looks like an invalid close reason, but so what, the question fails overall site standards. It looks like a classic lazy question. Although I'm unfamiliar with Dart, I would expect the language web site to have a FAQ and docs on something like how to pass parameters.
I voted "leave closed" and was then given the canned admonition:
STOP! Look and Listen.
This was an audit, designed to see if you were paying attention. You didn't pass. There are no major problems with this question. You should click Reopen, or make minor corrections via Edit and Reopen.
Don't worry, we've already handled this post appropriately – but please take a minute to look it over closely, keeping in mind the guidance above.
But I respectfully disagree.
This seems to be a correct vote.
The question fails the off-topic/provide your code test and the old "too localized" test (by failing to extract any goodness from the cited link that might help a future visitor).
There is a long discussion in comments. I did not read them all, there is a lot of noise to filter, and it only promotes the idea that maybe there was something unclear in this question. At best the OP has told us that he read a google groups posting and got confused about a specific task or paragraph, that you, dear reader, get to go find. I can see some people thinking 'I cant read his mind. Show us/tell us what, exactly, you found confusing.'
So was this just a bad review audit question?
Are volunteer reviewers fully correct to vote on what they think would be best for the site, or is the reopen review to be narrowed to 'did he fix the previous issue?'