Talk:Shanghai ERP Biotechnology / Archive 1

The trading designation collides with a common business-software acronym, and ordinary searching returns nothing about this entity. That is a verifiability problem for us, not a fact about the organisation, and the article should say which of the two it is. — SourceHunterSile (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The correct framing is "the coincidence makes verification difficult", not "little is known about the organisation", which implies opacity on its part. — Chromatokid (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Support that framing. It also means criterion 4 of Project:Vendor notability cannot be assessed for this entity as opposed to failing — a distinction worth preserving in the notability record. — NotabilityNoa (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Reworded to that, in both the body and the infobox row, so the two do not disagree. ✓ Done — SourceHunterSile (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Two purchaser endotoxin results are recorded here. Endotoxin testing is almost absent from submissions to this wiki, so two is unusual enough to note — but two results support no generalisation and the paragraph should say so. — EndotoxinEd (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, and the reporting limit of the method matters: "below the limit" means different things for a gel-clot and a kinetic chromogenic assay. If the reports state the method it should be stated here. — BlankVialBo (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Support. And the sentence should note that endotoxin does not decrease on storage, so unlike a purity figure it speaks to the process rather than to the shelf life. That is now also the reason §Ordering and availability tells a purchaser to ask for it with the assay named. ✓ Resolved — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)