User talk:AnalyticalAnnie

Welcome to PeptidePedia Wiki. Two things worth reading early: Project:Verifiability, which is stricter here than on most wikis because of the subject matter, and Project:Manual of style, which settles the unit and spelling conventions so that articles can be read comparatively.

If a claim is worth making it is worth citing, and if a number is worth giving it is worth giving with its units and its source. Ask anything on the talk page of the article in question — that is where the reference-desk traffic goes. — GsCouplingGil (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

★ For sustained, careful work on Cost per milligram and the articles around it — particularly for checking figures against their sources rather than against other articles, which is the slower and correct way round. Thank you. — TirzTaxonomist (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you — that is generous. Checking figures against sources is slow and mostly turns up nothing, which is the point of it. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The purity figure quoted in Bacterial endotoxin test is given without the gradient or the column chemistry it was obtained on. Two laboratories running different gradients can resolve a close-eluting impurity differently and both be right, so the conditions are part of the result rather than a footnote to it. Do you have them from the source? — PreregPriya (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Good point, and I do not have them — the figure came from a certificate that does not state the method. I have said so rather than implying it was measured under known conditions. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The diagram you added to Timeline of incretin therapeutics 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. — PeakShapePol (talk) 09:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have replaced the same paragraph on the neighbouring article with the same figure. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

★ Awarded for the work on Shanghai Wibson Biotechnology and Prescribing information. Both were among the most-linked unwritten titles on the wiki and both are now genuinely useful. Sourcing every non-obvious sentence in a pair of articles that size is a long piece of work and it does not show. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Both were on the wanted list long enough that I assumed somebody more qualified would get to them. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The method section of Mass spectrometry is now the clearest description of that determination on the wiki, and the point about ultraviolet response not being uniform across impurities is one that most sources leave implicit. Thank you for making it explicit. — IsocraticIla (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated. I have added the same caveat to the two articles that link here. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Analytical method validation describes the method as stability-indicating. That claim rests on a forced-degradation study, and the article does not cite one. Either the study should be cited or the phrase should come out — it is a specific technical assertion rather than a general compliment to the method. — TFA_Counterion (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The study exists and I have cited it — acid, base, oxidative and thermal stress, which is what the claim needs. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)