Talk:Action Medical Research

Latest comment: 3 months ago by Onanoff in topic Edits

Edits

edit

I've just edited the page in an effort to give the text a closer fit with the Wikipedia editorial policy of the neutral point of view. I've removed all references to 'We' and 'Our' and have made reference to 'the charity' or 'Action Medical Research' instead.Open Research 14:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many years later, and I've just moved it a bit further in the right direction. But this article is still fundamentally the charity's own promotion material. More work needed to rationalise and contextualise the work they've done, and write about it as prose, rather than lists of 'breakthroughs'. Onanoff (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Action Medical Research. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply