Talk:Alzheimer's Association

message: Doesn't appear to be notable enough for its own article. Adam9007 (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Alzheimer's Impact Movement]] 

message: I'm deleting the entire section. I would say that several statements here would be an "extraordinary claim". Before we publsh things like this we need to make sure its verifiable. The only citations for the sections are AIM's website. See WP:VFusion2186 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIM political research and activism section 

message: This whole section is chock full o' issues. wp:or  wp:v  wp:npov  wp:weasel  wp:syn....source 13 is an oppinon article... The information needs to be in there, but not written like this. As far as i can tell, there is only an issue with copyright infringement and the other matters have been settled...
I think it should be rewritten about the copyright infringement and possibly the split in leadership on the national vs local levels. I couldnt find anything about funds being lost or "falsely allocated"... just disagreement on how to use them and who is supposed to get them when the donations have conflicting information...  Since this seems slanderous and appears to have opinions mixed with half truths, im going to delete it until we can come up with a better version. Fusion2186 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fund issues" ? 

message: So far, your article for the Alzheimer's Association is off to a good start. It gives an informative historical background, as well as a thorough run-down of the events that the organization holds in the city. Much of the content dives into the fundraising and charitable aspect of the Alzheimer's Association, and given that there is a section that mentions speculations surrounding money allocation, I suggest that you add an article section on the organization's budget or it's public allocations (research, foundations, treatment?) if possible.
Your article for the Alzheimer's Association could be improved with the following edits:
* Replace self-published references with outside sources so that the information that you include to maintain a neutral article. A lot of your sections solely reference the organization's official website.
*Your "conference" section is a bit sparse and contains no reference. I suggest that this part be expanded to include specific details on the results, theories, and discoveries that you mentioned.
* I recommend that you add an "advancements" section so that the article includes the progress that the organization has made since it's inception.
--Reyes206 (talk) 02:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  COMM 206 Peer Review for Alzheimer's Association 

message: I too think your page is off to a good start. Your claims are informative and written from a neutral point of view. My only critique is if possible to give more details in the history section for your organization. I think that there is more information you could include such as why the organization was started and more details on how it was formed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.myo (talk • contribs) 03:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review Continued 

message: I have to agree with the other two comments that your page is off to a good start! In the conference section I think you should add some more information on what this conference is. Maybe some background info on it, when it was started, where it is held, I think that would be very helpful. Also, I think adding a Leadership section to your page would also be very beneficial, so more information on the organization can be available to people who go on your page. Overall, great start!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingtodor (talk • contribs) 04:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More review 

message: - the first sentence could be split up into 2.
- add Illinois after Chicago
- change "Rita Hayworth was diagnosed with Alzheimer.." to Alzheimer's disease. 
- "A Night at Sardi’s is an evening of entertainment that has raised" change 'is' to 'was' 
- the Blondes vs. Brunettes/RivALZ section looked good! 
- charity is spelled wrong under the Paint the Night Purple section 
- Alzheimer's Impact Movement section seems very informative
Overall there was a lot of great information provided. Except for the few couple of errors, the article looked great.
-Katie Krol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.81.59 (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review by Katie Krol