User talk:Retention_Time_Rae

Deamidation describes the method as stability-indicating. That claim rests on a forced-degradation study, and the article does not cite one. Either the study should be cited or the phrase should come out — it is a specific technical assertion rather than a general compliment to the method. — BiosimilarBoaz (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair. I have narrowed it to "reported as stability-indicating", attributed to whoever reported it. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The purity figure quoted in Area percent purity is given without the gradient or the column chemistry it was obtained on. Two laboratories running different gradients can resolve a close-eluting impurity differently and both be right, so the conditions are part of the result rather than a footnote to it. Do you have them from the source? — TallySheetTad (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Added. I have also flagged the second figure, which came from a different laboratory and almost certainly a different gradient. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The lead of Analytical method validation has grown to five paragraphs and now contains material that appears nowhere in the body. Per Project:Manual of style the lead summarises the article rather than extending it. Rather than cut it myself I thought I would ask whether the extra material was meant to become a section. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right — two of those paragraphs were meant to become a section and never did. I have moved them down rather than cutting them. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Analytical method validation describes the method as stability-indicating. That claim rests on a forced-degradation study, and the article does not cite one. Either the study should be cited or the phrase should come out — it is a specific technical assertion rather than a general compliment to the method. — DiluentDiya (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the phrase and described what the method actually separates, which is more useful anyway. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

The diagram you added to Limit of detection is much clearer than the paragraph it replaced, and it is correctly labelled, which is rarer than it should be. If you have the patience for more of them, Special:WantedPages is not the right list but the portals each keep a "things you can do" box, and several ask for figures. — SigFigSindri (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you — I will look at the portal boxes. I had been working from the wanted-pages list, which is the wrong list for figures. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The method section of Chinese Peptide Company is now the clearest description of that determination on the wiki, and the point about ultraviolet response not being uniform across impurities is one that most sources leave implicit. Thank you for making it explicit. — ColdChainCleo (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Kind of you. The section is still missing the limit of quantitation, which I will add when I have the source. — Retention_Time_Rae (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)