User talk:MassSpecMarv

A merge of Lyophilisation into Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate measurements with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — FigureFerdinand (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have argued against the merge on the talk page, on much the grounds you set out. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In Lyophilisation the reference interval is given without the assay. Since the interval is method-dependent, stating it bare makes it look more universal than it is. Do you have the method from the source, or should the interval be attributed to the laboratory that published it? — CiteBot (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 23:23, 22 December 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. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Given your edits around Lyophilisation, 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. — ArchiveBot (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, the priority lists are genuinely more useful than a general backlog. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The lead of Karl Fischer titration has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — ArchiveBot (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you for fixing rather than reverting. I had not registered that the convention was written down anywhere. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The sentence you added to Glucagon-like peptide-1 draws a human conclusion from an animal study. That is the specific case Project:No original research is aimed at. Describing the study, its model and the absence of human data is both permitted and, I would argue, more informative than the inference. — LCellLeif (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

That is a fair reading of the policy. I have rewritten it to describe the study and to say plainly that no human data exists. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)