User talk:DeadSpaceDot

I have added {{refimprove}} to Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology. Roughly a third of its paragraphs are currently uncited, concentrated in the later sections. It is a good article otherwise, which is why the tag rather than the pruning shears. — TallySheetTad (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

No argument — the later sections are the weak part. I will take a pass at them this month. — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that ChinaPeptides is substantially better than it was a month ago. The table you added does the work that three paragraphs of prose were failing to do. — StubSorterBot (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that is kind. The table was mostly a matter of noticing that three paragraphs were all trying to say the same thing. — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 08:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding Syringe dead space. I have tagged two of the figures with {{cn}} — 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. — EscalationEira (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Fair — the tags are reasonable and I will work through them. Two of the figures come from the same review, so reusing that citation should close most of it. — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The reception section of ChinaPeptides currently reads more warmly than its sources support. Two of the four statements are attributed to community tallies, which per Project:Verifiability are weak evidence and must be labelled as such at each point of use. I have added the labels; the substance is unchanged. — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — DeadSpaceDot (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)