User talk:SemaglutideSasha

Per Project:Manual of style the international non-proprietary name leads and the trade name follows in parentheses at first mention. Semaglutide 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. — GHK_Gwendolen (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made the same correction on the two sibling articles, which had the same inversion. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The molar mass in the Timeline of incretin therapeutics 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) 13:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The source gives the salt. Corrected — the difference here is close to nine per cent, which is not a rounding matter. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead of Oral semaglutide 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. — LiraLotte (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking rather than cutting. The extra material was meant to be a section and now is one. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded one sentence in Retatrutide that read as an endorsement. The underlying fact is sourced and stayed; only the adjective went. See Project:Neutral point of view — the relevant part is that a number is almost always better than an adjective where one exists. — OralSemaOswin (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for rewording rather than reverting. The fact was the part I cared about and it survived. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Timeline of incretin therapeutics 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? — OrforglipronOona (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I have replaced it with the two figures side by side and a sentence saying they are not from a common study. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Orforglipron 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? — TimelineTiernan (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The comparison was mine to make and it should not have been. Removed. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Converting the substitution lists in Liraglutide and Semaglutide 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. — CagriCass (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated. The next one in the series has the same problem and I will do the same to it. — SemaglutideSasha (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)