User talk:COA_Colwyn

You removed a sourced paragraph from Certificate of analysis without an edit summary. I have restored it. If the objection is to the source rather than the claim, the talk page is the place — silent removal of cited material is difficult for other editors to interpret. — PancreasPru (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. The claim is fine; it was the citation I did not trust, and I have replaced it rather than removing the text. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

An automated pass normalised the citation formatting on Shanghai ERP Biotechnology and expanded two bare identifiers into full citations. One reference could not be resolved and has been left tagged. This is an automated message; replies to it are read by a human eventually, but the article talk page is faster. — StubSorterBot (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The reception figure in Qingdao Sigma Chemical is labelled as self-reported at the top of the section and then used three more times without the label. Per Project:Sourcing guidelines the labelling attaches at each point of use, because paragraphs get split and reordered. I have added it at the other three. — UnitsUrsula (talk) 10:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair. I have also made the wording identical at each point, so a reader recognises it as the same caveat. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

SinoPep refers to a testing service's competence without saying whether it holds accreditation to a recognised standard. Either the accreditation should be cited or the article should say plainly that it is not stated — self-description is not evidence of either. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have cited the accreditation for the one service that publishes it and written "not stated" for the others. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the aggregate pass-rate figure from Qingdao Sigma Chemical. The denominator is not knowable from purchaser submissions, so the percentage was arithmetic performed on a number that does not exist. Everything else in the section stands. — AttributeAnders (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I have replaced it with the raw counts and the period they cover, which is all that is defensible. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2026 (UTC)