User talk:MassSpecMarv

I have reworded one sentence in Area percent purity that read as an endorsement. The underlying fact is sourced and stayed; only the adjective went. See Project:Neutral point of view — the relevant part is that a number is almost always better than an adjective where one exists. — FreightFenna (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair. The adjective was doing work the source does not authorise, and the sentence is better without it. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The purity figure quoted in Mass spectrometry 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? — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 07:25, 23 June 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. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The {{cn}} tags on Area percent purity have all been addressed, so I have removed the article-level banner. Thank you for working through them — that backlog had been open since last autumn. — OralSemaOswin (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Appreciated. Two of them turned out to be genuinely unsourceable and came out rather than being cited. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The categories on Beta cell function and Subcutaneous injection 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? — AmylinAmos (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I have taken a view on the talk page of the one I know better, and moved the other to match. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Threads on this page older than 120 days and marked resolved have been moved to an archive subpage. Unresolved threads were left in place regardless of age. This is an automated message. — ArchiveBot (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Deamidation 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. — A1c_Alder (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The study exists and I have cited it — acid, base, oxidative and thermal stress, which is what the claim needs. — MassSpecMarv (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2026 (UTC)