PeptidePedia The community reference

User talk:KarlFischerKit

Editor talk page·4 messages

This is the talk page for the editor KarlFischerKit. Messages left here are public and are signed. Please add new messages at the bottom, and sign with four tildes.

Neutrality of the reception section in Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology

The reception section of Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology 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. — LedgerLysander (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — KarlFischerKit (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Source for the incidence figure in Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology

In Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology 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? — Compounding_Cate (talk) 19:19, 9 October 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. — KarlFischerKit (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Welcome, and thank you for Sangon Biotech

Welcome. Your work on Sangon Biotech 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. — Chromatokid (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we disagree about Hunan Aslsen Technology

We have now reverted each other twice on Hunan Aslsen Technology, 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? — COA_Colwyn (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would rather be argued out of it than keep reverting. I have opened a section. — KarlFischerKit (talk) 23:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)