Talk:WuXi TIDES
Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive
This is the discussion page for the article WuXi TIDES. 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.
Is "agreement with the certificate" worth reporting?
§Independent testing record says submitted reports have agreed with the accompanying certificates. I want to push on what that sentence is doing.
Two measurements of the same sample agreeing tells us the certificate was not fabricated for that sample. It tells us nothing about the lot, because the sample was not drawn blind. Are we reporting a finding, or reporting the absence of one specific failure mode? — — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The latter, and the article should say so in those terms. The absence of that failure mode is worth recording precisely because Test report forgery documents cases where it was present. It is a low bar, and describing it as a low bar is the honest treatment. — — Chromatokid (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree. The stronger point is the one the section makes second: the certificates mostly omit water and counterion figures, so the purity number cannot be converted into a mass. That is a substantive documentation gap and it applies across almost every organisation covered here. — — COA_Colwyn (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I have reordered the section so the gap comes first and the agreement second, since the gap is the more informative finding. Leaving open in case anyone objects to the emphasis. — — BlindSampleBrid (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Standing note: what this article may not containResolved
Placing the standing note at the top of every supplier talk page so it does not have to be re-argued. Under Project:Vendor notability a supplier article may not contain: a price, an offer, a discount, a price list, any contact detail, or a shipping-outcome claim not attributed to a source.
Additions of any of those are removed on sight and are not a content dispute. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, and worth adding the reason rather than only the rule: each of those items turns a reference entry into a sales listing, and the moment one article carries them every other organisation has a grievance. — — CoI_Corin (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. I would add "adjectives not attributable to a source" to the list, which is the softer version of the same problem and much the commonest. — — Hedgerow_Hal (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Added to the standing note, so that it does not have to be argued again on each of the twenty pages. ✓ Resolved — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)