User talk:Peptide_Pete

Thanks for expanding Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology. I have tagged two of the figures with {{cn}} — not because I doubt them, but because a reader cannot check them, and per Project:Verifiability that is the test. If the source is the review already cited further up, reusing that citation on the specific sentence is enough. — EndotoxinEd (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2024 (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. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a request for comment open on Talk:WuXi TIDES 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. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer — I have commented. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Welcome. Your work on Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology 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. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The diagram you added to Glucagon-like peptide-1 is much clearer than the paragraph it replaced, and it is correctly labelled, which is rarer than it should be. If you have the patience for more of them, Special:WantedPages is not the right list but the portals each keep a "things you can do" box, and several ask for figures. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look at the portal boxes. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

In WuXi TIDES 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? — CheckSumChase (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Good question, and I do not know. I have tagged it and asked on the article talk page. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology and Trial data comparison disagree about where the topic sits. Both are defensible; having both is not, because the two articles then never appear in the same listing. Could you take a view on the talk page of whichever you know better? — RetatrutideRuben (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The sentence you added to WuXi TIDES 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. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 04:23, 14 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. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)