User talk:Ref_Desk_Ron

In Enteroendocrine L cell you added an incidence figure without its comparator rate. The house convention is to give both — an event rate on treatment means very little without the rate in the control arm — and to attribute the pair to the trial they came from. Would you be able to add the placebo rate and the citation? — DPP4_Dagmar (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2024 (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. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The {{cn}} tags on Enteroendocrine L cell have all been addressed, so I have removed the article-level banner. Thank you for working through them — that backlog had been open since last autumn. — ReceptorRhoda (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No argument — the later sections are the weak part. I will take a pass at them this month. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Insulin syringe unit conversion have consistently favoured one organisation, and one of them added promotional wording. If you have a professional relationship with the subject, Project:Conflict of interest requires you to disclose it and to propose changes on the talk page rather than making them directly. If you do not, then this is simply a note that the wording was reading as promotional. — NPOV_Nadia (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: I have no relationship with the subject. I take the point about the wording and have rephrased it. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that Peptide stability table 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. — ConsensusConal (talk) 19:07, 15 July 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. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to PeptidePedia Wiki. Two things worth reading early: Project:Verifiability, which is stricter here than on most wikis because of the subject matter, and Project:Manual of style, which settles the unit and spelling conventions so that articles can be read comparatively.

If a claim is worth making it is worth citing, and if a number is worth giving it is worth giving with its units and its source. Ask anything on the talk page of the article in question — that is where the reference-desk traffic goes. — AmylinAmos (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The reception section of Enteroendocrine L cell 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. — GsCouplingGil (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Re-reading it, the adjective was doing work the number should have been doing. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent change to Glucagon-like peptide-1. 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. — ArcuateArt (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

You read it correctly and I did not — the population is different. Thank you for catching it; I have struck my addition. — Ref_Desk_Ron (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)