User talk:B12_Bettina
Editor talk page·2 messages
Neutrality of the reception section in ChinaPeptides
The reception section of ChinaPeptides 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. — SarcopeniaSefa (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Fair. I had treated the section heading as carrying the caveat, and headings do not travel with quoted text. — B12_Bettina (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Pre-analytical requirements in Sarcopenia
The interval in Sarcopenia depends on tube type and time to separation, neither of which the article mentions. It is the sort of omission that makes a reader think a result is wrong when the sample was simply handled differently. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I have added the stability of the analyte in the sample as well, which is the other half of it. — B12_Bettina (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)