Talk:Altos Labs

Its worth pointing out that Altos Labs insist that they are focused on healthspan rather than lifespan\longevity

93.80.86.58 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out! I added the sourced content to the article. WatkynBassett (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"The idea for Altos Labs originated with cell biologist and entrepreneur Richard D. Klausner"

From the Economist article cited ([1]):

"The idea that became Altos was dreamed up by Dr Klausner, a former head of America’s National Cancer Institute, and Dr Milner, an entrepreneur and venture capitalist with fingers in many technological pies, in a series of covid-escaping walks in Los Altos"

Advert and notability templates added

The company has not produced any notable products—it has not even fully established its facilities as far as I can tell. The article appears to me to have been written by someone who expects the company will become notable, and in my opinion the cited coverage also generally expresses this view. Considering the company has not yet received coverage for attempting any research, let alone producing any product, is it really more notable than any other startup? RookWeaver (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@RookWeaver: I (unfortunately) disagree with the notability and the advert tag and have reverted both (WP:BRD).

a) Concerning the notability: WP:ORG requires that the organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This requirement is e.g. met by the following cited sources (additional material can be googled):

aa) Economist

bb) MIT Technology Review

cc) FT (Paywall)

dd) Heise (German)

b) Concerning advertisement: I was a bit baffled by this tag. I understand that the content of the article is quite positive. But it is reflective of the coverage in the cited sources. Which content/sentences do you find questionable? Happy to discuss. WatkynBassett (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett Okay, definitely makes sense and I appreciate you taking the time to review that. I'm glad someone else looked at it, I think I was approaching the article too cynically (viewing it as a corporate-written press release as is sometimes done), and you're right that it's reflective of the coverage. RookWeaver (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

@RookWeaver: Thanks! That was a pleasant exchange and I agree that corporate whitewashing should always be challenged. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)