Talk:Underfilling
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Underfilling. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
The arithmetic paragraphResolved
The worked example — 5.0 mg of solid at 80% content is 4.0 mg of peptide — does more for a reader than the whole of the rest of the article. It should stay exactly where it is. — UnderfillUna (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, and the second figure at 60% makes the sensitivity visible. ✓ Done — PlainNumbersPip (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
Overage section balances the articleDone
Without the overage section this article would read as an accusation. With it, it reads as a description of a measurement and its interpretation. Good addition. — BalanceBirdie (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Overage genuinely is ordinary practice and omitting it would have been a factual gap, not only a tonal one. ✓ Done — StopperingSteff (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
Tare error on small fills
The point that glass and closure variation can be comparable with the fill itself deserves emphasis — a 2 mg fill in a vial weighing several grams is a difficult gravimetric problem. — BlankVialBo (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. Weighing several units is the practical answer and the article says so, but the magnitude of the difficulty could be clearer. — UnderfillUna (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)