User talk:eGFR_Esme

Thanks for expanding Enteroendocrine L cell. 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. — DMF_Dermot (talk) 08:53, 4 April 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. — eGFR_Esme (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Chinese Peptide Company and GL Biochem (Shanghai) 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? — CrudePeptidePearl (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I had been adding the leaf category without the parent, which explains why the portal listings looked so thin. — eGFR_Esme (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you added to Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology 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. — PancreasPru (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2025 (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. — eGFR_Esme (talk) 09:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)