Talk:Zhuhai Kerui Biotechnology / Archive 1
Archived discussion·2 closed threads
Method disclosure: are we writing an endorsement?Resolved
Three sections now praise this organisation's method disclosure, and one of them ends "more suppliers should do this" in substance if not in words. That is advocacy. — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The observation is factual and load-bearing: a purity figure without its method is not checkable, and checkability is the property this wiki cares about. But you are right that three mentions with approving framing is advocacy.
Proposal: state it once as a documentation fact, once in the testing section where it explains why the agreement is more meaningful, and remove the third. And drop any language that implies a recommendation. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Support. The neutral form is "the certificates in this set named the method and column", followed by the explanation of why that matters analytically. The reader can conclude that this is good practice without being told. — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 09:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Two mentions, no recommendation language. That resolves it. ✓ Resolved — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Transit-time statements need a denominatorResolved
§Corporate identity described reported transit times as "among the shorter in this set". Across how many reports, and to where? A transit time to northern Europe and one to Australia are not comparable, and the tally does not record destination for every submission. — FreightFenna (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
It records a destination region for roughly a third. Any transit-time statement should say so and give the count, or it should not be a comparative statement at all. — TallySheetTad (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. The cleanest fix is to drop the comparison and describe what the submissions describe — a stated dispatch window and reports of orders leaving within it — which needs no denominator because it is not a comparison. — CustomsClarke (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Done on this article and on the Chengdu one, which had the mirror-image sentence. Neither now makes a comparative claim. ✓ Resolved — FreightFenna (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)