Talk:SinoPep / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
Notability, and whether a documentary distinction is a notable oneResolved
Proposing this article under Project:Vendor notability. Criteria 1, 2 and 4 are met on the registry record, the submitted set and the independent determinations. Criterion 3 is not met and will not be: there is no independent coverage of this organisation, as there is none of any organisation covered here. — ScopeSeverin (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Support. One caution for whoever writes the lead: the interesting fact here is documentary rather than commercial, and a lead written around trade description will bury it. — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Support, and I would go further than Hal. The counter-ion reporting is the only reason this file is distinguishable from a dozen others in the project, and if it is going to be stated it must be stated as a property of the submitted set rather than of the organisation. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Agreed on both. Also record the quotation delay in §Operations. An article that lists only the flattering recurring theme from a self-selected set is curating it. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Created to those terms. Counter-ion reporting attributed to the submitted set, quotation delay in §Operations, founding year stated once and cited to the registry. ✓ Done — ScopeSeverin (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
Whether the counter-ion figure belongs in the leadResolved
The distinguishing documentary fact on this file is that counter-ion content is quantified on the certificate as issued. Every other supplier article here treats that as a §Testing detail. On this one it is the reason the article exists, and burying it three sections down misrepresents the source base. Proposing it move into the lead. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Not as written. "Every certificate carries it" is a claim about a population and what we hold is a sample of submissions. Attribute it to the submitted set and quantify the set, and it can go in the lead. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Nadia on the wording and with Colwyn on the placement. Worth stating plainly in §Testing why it matters, too: chromatographic purity is a composition of what eluted, not a mass of peptide in the vial, and on a trifluoroacetate salt the difference runs to several per cent. A reader who does not know that cannot see why the line is significant. — Chromatokid (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Rewritten to those terms: attributed to the submitted set in the lead, with the arithmetic explained once in §Testing and not repeated. ✓ Done — COA_Colwyn (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)