User talk:UnderfillUna
Editor talk page·4 messages
Tally labelling in Hubei Jianxiang Bioscience
The reception figure in Hubei Jianxiang Bioscience is labelled as self-reported at the top of the section and then used three more times without the label. Per Project:Sourcing guidelines the labelling attaches at each point of use, because paragraphs get split and reordered. I have added it at the other three. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. The labelling at each point of use is repetitive and it is also the only thing that survives a paragraph being split. — UnderfillUna (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Citations on Purity claim inflation
Thanks for expanding Purity claim inflation. I have tagged two of the figures with — not because I doubt them, but because a reader cannot check them, and per Project:Verifiability that is the test. If the source is the review already cited further up, reusing that citation on the specific sentence is enough. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC){{cn}}
Agreed, and thank you for tagging rather than cutting. Both are now cited at the sentence rather than at the paragraph. — UnderfillUna (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
Sampling in Hubei Jianxiang Bioscience
Hubei Jianxiang Bioscience reports agreement between certificates and independent reports. Since none of those samples was drawn blind, the agreement establishes that two measurements of one vial agreed and nothing about the lot. Would you object to the section saying that in those terms? — ArchiveAudit (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Fair. I have added a cross-link to the blind-sampling article so the point does not have to be re-made every time. — UnderfillUna (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Sampling in Nantong Guangyuan Chemical
Nantong Guangyuan Chemical reports agreement between certificates and independent reports. Since none of those samples was drawn blind, the agreement establishes that two measurements of one vial agreed and nothing about the lot. Would you object to the section saying that in those terms? — BlankVialBo (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
No objection at all — that is more precise than what is there, and I have rewritten the sentence in those terms. — UnderfillUna (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)