User talk:GlossaryGleb

I have reworded one sentence in Trial data comparison 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. — NeutralNikolai (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — GlossaryGleb (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

A move has been proposed at Talk:Wuhan Wansheng Biotechnology. 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. — StubSorterBot (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Commented. My own view is that the current title is the searchable one, but I hold it loosely. — GlossaryGleb (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Multi-dose vial 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. — ForestPlotFinn (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

We have now reverted each other twice on Syringe dead space, 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? — SecretagogueSol (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — GlossaryGleb (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The reception section of Trial data comparison 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. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — GlossaryGleb (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)