Talk:Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology / Archive 1
Archived discussion·1 closed thread
Method disclosure: are we writing an endorsement?Resolved
Three sections now praise this organisation's method disclosure, and one of them ends "more suppliers should do this" in substance if not in words. That is advocacy. — — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The observation is factual and load-bearing: a purity figure without its method is not checkable, and checkability is the property this wiki cares about. But you are right that three mentions with approving framing is advocacy.
Proposal: state it once as a documentation fact, once in the testing section where it explains why the agreement is more meaningful, and remove the third. And drop any language that implies a recommendation. — — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Support. The neutral form is "the certificates in this set named the method and column", followed by the explanation of why that matters analytically. The reader can conclude that this is good practice without being told. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Two mentions, no recommendation language. That resolves it. ✓ Resolved — — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)