User talk:DrTitration

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. — FreightFenna (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

In Qingdao Saber Technology Pharmaceutical you added an incidence figure without its comparator rate. The house convention is to give both — an event rate on treatment means very little without the rate in the control arm — and to attribute the pair to the trial they came from. Would you be able to add the placebo rate and the citation? — CouplingCillian (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair — the tags are reasonable and I will work through them. Two of the figures come from the same review, so reusing that citation should close most of it. — DrTitration (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Shanghai Sigma-Audley New Material Technology. 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. — LotTraceLuka (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Commented. My own view is that the current title is the searchable one, but I hold it loosely. — DrTitration (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded one sentence in Lyophilisation that read as an endorsement. The underlying fact is sourced and stayed; only the adjective went. See Project:Neutral point of view — the relevant part is that a number is almost always better than an adjective where one exists. — FmocFrancis (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — DrTitration (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Given your edits around Temperature excursion, you might find the working-group pages useful — Project:Analytical working group, Project:Pharmacology working group and Project:Clinical evidence working group each keep a short priority list, and the priorities are mostly things one person can finish in an afternoon. — TitrationTheo (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, the priority lists are genuinely more useful than a general backlog. — DrTitration (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

We have now reverted each other twice on ChinaPeptides, 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? — SVG_Solomon (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — DrTitration (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added {{refimprove}} to Qingdao Saber Technology Pharmaceutical. 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. — ForgeryFinder (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No argument — the later sections are the weak part. I will take a pass at them this month. — DrTitration (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)