Talk:Engelstad Foundation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 October 2019 by reviewer Kvng (talk · contribs).

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

WP:THREE

Three best sources:

Lpete2019 (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft establishes notability, is verifiable, and cites an acceptable range of sources, but cherry picks from them to promote the foundation rather than being a neutral profile. It whitewashes by giving undue weight to positive things while ignoring those that are neutral or negative.

The main source, and several others cited or uncited, discuss its fractious relationships with UNLV and UND, the unusual terms of its gifts, its pulling of donations, and its lobbying to change the law. The draft brushes all of that under the carpet.

Reevaluate the entire awards section. It's hardly surprising that organizations receiving millions of dollars in gifts would give the donor an award. Any award covered only by the awarding organization and the awardee should be removed. Remaining awards that give the appearance of quid-pro-quo should be removed or merged into the discussion of the gift. Awards from third parties, especially awards that are themselves notable, can remain in the article, but consider integrating them into the text. They should not be in bold.

The distinction between the philanthropy and partnerships sections is unclear. Does it partner with organizations it doesn't give money to? In these partnerships is it contributing something other than cash?

Try to find information on finances (not just its donations, but its income and expenses). Try to find more than one sentence about leadership.

While you're fixing the above, improve the context. You wrote that "Engelstad opened the Imperial Palace", but you can't expect readers to know whether that's a restaurant in San Francisco or a theme park in Tokyo. That sentence has been fixed, but watch out for others. Is Engelstad dead? When did he die? You've explained some of the geographic connections, but why does the foundation donate in Mississippi? Worldbruce (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To quickly address this and get this out to draft status, I have cut the list but retained the refs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been revised to address the above concerns and sources have been confirmed and organized better, reasonably fixing the issue. At this point, is it in a place to remove the neutrality tag? Lpete2019 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE

WP:NPOV