Talk:Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology
Discussion page·3 threads·1 archive
This is the discussion page for the article Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology. 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.
How should the lot-mismatch reports be presented?RfC
Request for comment. §Operations records two purchaser reports of a certificate whose lot identifier did not match the vial label. Two reports out of a set of several hundred.
Question: does recording that serve the reader, or does it give two anecdotes the weight of a finding? The competing considerations are verifiability (the reports exist and are attributable) and undue weight (two is not a pattern). — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Record it, with the count stated. A traceability failure is qualitatively different from a purity variance: it means the document does not describe the object. Two instances is not a pattern and the article says so, but a reader deciding what to check on arrival is better off knowing that this is a thing that has happened. — — LotTraceLuka (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Record it. My test for undue weight is whether the count and the denominator are both visible. They are. What would be undue is a section heading about it, or its appearing in the lead. — — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 09:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Record with reservation. I accept the reasoning, but note that we do not have comparable data for the other nineteen organisations — nobody has systematically asked purchasers whether lot numbers matched. So this article carries an observation the others do not, and a reader may read its absence elsewhere as absence of the problem. — — BalanceBirdie (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Reading consensus as record it, with the count and denominator visible, and taking Birdie's point as an action rather than an objection: the asymmetry across articles is a real problem and I have added it to the working-group list. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 11:19, 11 December 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)