Talk:Purity claim inflation
Discussion page·3 threads·no archives
This is the discussion page for the article Purity claim inflation. It is for improving the article: sources, wording, structure, scope and titles. It is not a general discussion forum about the subject, and it is not a place to ask for advice — see Project:Medical disclaimer.
Title implies bad faithResolved
"Inflation" carries an implication of intent. Much of what the article describes happens without anyone deciding to mislead. Should the title be changed? — NeutralNikolai (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
The term is established in community usage and a reader will search for it. I have instead made the article state repeatedly that none of the mechanisms is necessarily improper, and closed with the point that this is a property of the instrument. — PurityClaimPia (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
That resolves my concern better than a rename would. ✓ Done — NeutralNikolai (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
Wavelength pointDone
The 214 versus 280 nm distinction is the most technically substantial thing on this page and is almost never mentioned in community discussion. Keep it prominent. — Chromatokid (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. It is also the easiest for a reader to check, since the wavelength is a single field on a certificate. ✓ Done — GradientGus (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Checkability as the criterion
"A document that answers these is checkable, whatever the numbers on it" is a better standard than any purity threshold, and it generalises to every article in this cluster. — COA_Colwyn (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
It is the standard the working group settled on. I would like to see it stated once properly at Certificate of analysis and referenced from here rather than restated. — VerifyVesna (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2026 (UTC)