User talk:ColdChainCleo

Welcome. Your work on Grey market was a useful addition — it was one of the thinner pages in its topic area.

One convention to note for next time: numeric claims need an inline citation each, not one citation at the end of the paragraph, because the paragraph usually ends up split later and the citation then attaches to the wrong sentence. See Project:Sourcing guidelines. — Chromatokid (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The sentence you added to CagriSema draws a human conclusion from an animal study. That is the specific case Project:No original research is aimed at. Describing the study, its model and the absence of human data is both permitted and, I would argue, more informative than the inference. — CagriCass (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have described the model and the endpoint and dropped the conclusion, which is more informative anyway. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The excursion figure in Temperature excursion is given without the study it derives from and without the duration it applies to. A tolerance without a time is not a tolerance. I have tagged it rather than removing it because I suspect the source exists. — SupplyWatchSuri (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right that a tolerance without a time is not a tolerance. Both the duration and the study are now cited. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

In C-peptide the reference interval is given without the assay. Since the interval is method-dependent, stating it bare makes it look more universal than it is. Do you have the method from the source, or should the interval be attributed to the laboratory that published it? — NavboxNiko (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The method is in the source and I have added it. Attributing the interval to the laboratory as well seems right. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The reception section of Chinese Peptide Company currently reads more warmly than its sources support. Two of the four statements are attributed to community tallies, which per Project:Verifiability are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at each point of use. I have added the labels; the substance is unchanged. — ReportReaderRilla (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The label at each point of use is repetitive to write and it is the only thing that survives a paragraph being split. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Project:Manual of style temperatures take a space before the unit and ranges take an en dash. Peptide is inconsistent within a single table. I have fixed the table and left the body text, which has the same issue in two places. — IcodecIndra (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed in the body as well; the table was only the visible half of it. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The {{cn}} tags on Peptide 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. — CounterfeitCato (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for going through and confirming. That backlog had been sitting there since before I started editing. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2026 (UTC)