User talk:Areapercent_Ayo

I have reverted your recent change to Electrospray ionisation. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — ColumnOvenCoy (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have taken it to the article talk page anyway, because the same figure appears on two other articles under the same ambiguity. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology is substantially better than it was a month ago. The restructuring you did says in two sections what four were failing to say. — BPC_Bramwell (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of it was moving material that was already there into an order that made sense of it. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The worked example in Karl Fischer titration normalises to a hundred per cent of integrated peak area without restating what that step assumes — that everything present eluted, and that everything that eluted absorbed at the detection wavelength. The article says both things a few paragraphs earlier and the example then quietly relies on them. One clause inside the example would stop a reader carrying the number away as a mass fraction. — TechnicianTeal (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed — a reader taking the figure out of context would read it as a mass fraction, which is exactly the error the section above warns about. Reworded. — Areapercent_Ayo (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)