Resource page submissions: propose something the reader can actually use

A resource-page submission is stronger when it explains the resource's job. Imagine a page collecting practical checklists for small-site migrations. What would make another checklist worth considering?

I would describe the task it supports, the original contribution, whether it is accessible without an account, and how it will be maintained. Then compare it with what the page already offers.

Members can share a resource example and its intended audience, with ownership disclosed. This is a contribution discussion rather than a promise that a link will be added. A useful reply should explain the reader benefit or a specific gap in the proposed resource.

For the migration example, a resource could include a concise acceptance checklist with expected responses and owners. That gives a reader something usable during a release.

It should also state its assumptions. A checklist for one platform may not cover a different site's implementation.

The pitch should identify the relevant section of the resource page and what the addition supplies. That helps the editor inspect the fit quickly.

I would avoid requests for particular anchor text or a predetermined position. The editor needs room to organise the collection.

A useful submission format here would be purpose, audience, original material, access requirements and maintenance plan.

If the resource duplicates an existing item, explain the difference. Otherwise the collection may need a better version of an existing reference rather than another near-identical entry.