User talk:ITT_Imelda

The sentence you added to Nantong Guangyuan Chemical draws a human conclusion from an animal study. That is the specific case Project:No original research is aimed at. Describing the study, its model and the absence of human data is both permitted and, I would argue, more informative than the inference. — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a fair reading of the policy. I have rewritten it to describe the study and to say plainly that no human data exists. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. The source cited does report the number, but it reports it for a different population than the sentence now claims. If I have misread the paper, please say so on the article talk page and I will restore it — I would rather be corrected than leave it wrong in either direction. — CategoryBot (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding Nantong Guangyuan Chemical. 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. — ArchiveBot (talk) 03:59, 5 January 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. — ITT_Imelda (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)