Talk:Aging-associated diseases

message: "Humans, dogs and rabbits get Alzheimer's disease, but rodents do not."  Wow, all these years I thought rabbits were rodents -- I guess I was wrong!!!  Thank you for setting me straight, Wiki geniuses!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.228.66 (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rabbits are not rodents. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Wiki Ignorance!!! 

message: Should the article be called Aging-associated disease or Aging-associated disease? I feel like the singular is more appropriate. Devourer09 (t·c) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural article title 

message: I have never read or seen scientific evidence that Alzheimer's disease is a normal part of aging.  In fact, no dementia is a normal part of aging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMSLA (talk • contribs) 20:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alzheimer's Disease 

message: Frontline (U.S. TV series) will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/pressroom/frontline-propublica-investigate-assisted-living-in-america/
Please contribute to  discussion Talk:Assisted_living#Life_and_Death_in_Assisted_Living XOttawahitech (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Life and Death in Assisted Living

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Aging-associated diseases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161013163622/http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/ENHANCE-PP.pdf to http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/ENHANCE-PP.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1. a. Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The lead section defines the terms. The hyperlinked text is helpful and better understanding the medical terms. The section labeled “Patterns of differences is unclear as to what the text below will talk about. Some text is also missing citations. Overall the structure flows and it is written in a neutral tone. The edits made are appropriate and provide a deeper understanding of the main aging-related diseases. 
b. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
The group accomplished their goals. The group added a section on aging-related diseases which provides more in-depth information about common illnesses that are a result of age. 
2. Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify…
The edits are consistent with the manual of style. The information is structured into sections and subsections which makes the information easy to find. Perhaps, an introduction  to why these two diseases (Alzheimers and Atheroschlerosis) are highlighted would be helpful because the audience might not know why these two diseases were described and other diseases were not. 
NoraCortez (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nora's Peer Review (Group 6a) 

message: 1. A) Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The lead section has good information, but it is difficult to understand for the average reader. "Senescence" should be defined at least once. However, the examples of age-related diseases in the lead section are helpful to understand the concept. The structure could be more logical-- the first section is "Patterns of Differences", and I am unclear of what the section will contain. There is balanced coverage because the group used research articles, and additional information about other age related diseases. The content is neutral because it relies on multiple types of research studies. The sources are reliable and derived from medical journals, American Heart Association, NIH, etc.
B) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
The group did expand the aging-associated diseases; they added Alzheimer's Disease and Atherosclerosis which are good, clear examples of the topic. They may have verified other sections of the page for validity, but there are no edits that I am able to see that confirm this.
2. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation?
There was no evidence of plagiarism, the information was accurate and derived from the citations, but the group wrote the information in lay language. Great job.
Sabrinabulla (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sabrina's Peer Review (Group 6A) 

message: 1a. Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
The leading section of this article is confusing to read and I think it needs to be reworded so that it is more easily understood, specifically the first paragraph. The organization of the article is fine. You should remove "so-called" from the second paragraph of the "Patterns of Differences" section because it's not neutral.
1b. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
This article is very short and needs a lot of work done for improvement. I think the goals are good because there isn't too much information and needs a lot of expansion. The addition of the aging-related diseases is a good idea.  So far the edits are greatly improving the article!
2. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…
The points included are from good secondary sources and readily available, however, some of them seem to be a little outdated (greater than 5 years old). 
Amandabair (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amanda's Peer Review - Group 6a 

message: Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
* The group edits significantly improved the article by adding in 4 disease states. It was very informative and the flow was easy to follow. 
Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? 
* The group's goals were to expand the article and to confirm validity of statements. With the addition of the 4 disease states, the article was expanded and facts were supported by appropriate sources.
Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…
* Overall the article reflects a neutral point of view, with the exception of one phrase under Patterns of Differences: "People with the so-called segmental progerias are vulnerable to different sets of diseases."
Knguyen525 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 6a: Kim Chi's Peer Review