User talk:ColdChainCleo

I have added {{refimprove}} to Chinese Peptide Company. Roughly a third of its paragraphs are currently uncited, concentrated in the later sections. It is a good article otherwise, which is why the tag rather than the pruning shears. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No argument — the later sections are the weak part. I will take a pass at them this month. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The reception section of Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide currently reads more warmly than its sources support. Two of the four statements are attributed to community tallies, which per Project:Verifiability are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at each point of use. I have added the labels; the substance is unchanged. — HalfLifeHavel (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Chinese Peptide Company. Since you wrote most of the article's current text you may have a view on whether the proposed title is the one a reader would search for. — UnderfillUna (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Commented. My own view is that the current title is the searchable one, but I hold it loosely. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

★ For sustained, careful work on Temperature excursion and the articles around it — particularly for checking figures against their sources rather than against other articles, which is the slower and correct way round. Thank you. — GreyMarketGreer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated. It is a slow way to work but it is the only way I trust. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Temperature excursion was a useful addition — it was one of the thinner pages in its topic area.

One convention to note for next time: numeric claims need an inline citation each, not one citation at the end of the paragraph, because the paragraph usually ends up split later and the citation then attaches to the wrong sentence. See Project:Sourcing guidelines. — SupplyWatchSuri (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

We have now reverted each other twice on Chinese Peptide Company, which is a sign that the disagreement is substantive rather than accidental. My reading is that the source supports the weaker of the two claims. Rather than continue in edit summaries, shall we put it on the article talk page and let someone else weigh in? — B12_Bettina (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a request for comment open on Talk:Glucagon-like peptide-1 that touches an area you have edited in. It concerns how strongly the article should state that human evidence is absent, and it would benefit from more than three voices. — FormularyFrida (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer — I have commented. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2026 (UTC)