User talk:INN_Ingrid

I have added {{refimprove}} to Lixisenatide. Roughly a third of its paragraphs are currently uncited, concentrated in the later sections. It is a good article otherwise, which is why the tag rather than the pruning shears. — MolarMassMaeve (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I have cited about half and listed the rest on the talk page so somebody with better library access can take them. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Converting the substitution lists in Lixisenatide and Survodutide into tables was the right call — the analogues now line up row for row and the differences are visible at a glance, which three paragraphs of prose were never going to achieve. — ComparisonCato (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. If the column order looks wrong to you, say so — I went back and forth on it. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The molar mass in the CagriSema infobox does not say which form it refers to. Free base and salt differ by enough that a reader reconstituting from the figure would be several per cent out. Do you know which the source gives? — DulaglutideDug (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

The source gives the salt. Corrected — the difference here is close to nine per cent, which is not a rounding matter. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Liraglutide compares potency with a compound that has no published head-to-head study against it. The comparison may well be right, but assembling it from two separate trials is the case Project:No original research covers. Could the sentence be attributed to a review that makes the comparison, or removed? — A1c_Alder (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The comparison was mine to make and it should not have been. Removed. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Per Project:Manual of style the international non-proprietary name leads and the trade name follows in parentheses at first mention. Liraglutide has it the other way round in the lead and the right way round in the body. Not important in itself, but the articles are read side by side. — CuriousCallum (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. The lead now leads with the international name and the trade name follows it. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

A merge of Peptide content into Peptide supply chain has been proposed. My own view is that they are separate subjects with separate failure modes and should stay separate, but I am not confident enough to close it. Comments welcome at the article talk page. — CRP_Cormac (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Commented. I have also proposed a summary-style arrangement, which gives the reader one entry point without losing either article. — INN_Ingrid (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)