Template:Did you know nominations/HealthGrades

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Orlady (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

HealthGrades

• ( Back to T:TDYK
• Article history )

• ... that HealthGrades healthcare ratings are free to the public, but require compensation from providers?

Created/expanded by Mgreason (talk). Self nom at 15:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
Easchiff (talk)		Easchiff (talk)

• The proposed hook is not usable. The ratings do not require compensation from providers; it is only when the provider wants to use the ratings for advertisements that licensing fees are paid. Either a rewrite or an alternate is needed.

How about:

• ALT1... that HealthGrades healthcare ratings are free to view, but require compensation if used in provider promotions? Mgrē@sŏn 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• It's more accurate. Here's a slight variation, though I'm not sure it's better than yours. Take your pick, and I'll fill out the form to approve it for DYK.
  ALT2...that HealthGrades proprietary ratings of US healthcare providers are free to view, but providers pay licensing fees to publicize their own favorable ratings? Easchiff (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your version includes all the pertinent facts; as long as it's not too long, I'm fine with it. Mgrē@sŏn 14:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hook review for ALT1 or 2

Format	Citation	Neutrality	Interest
16px	16px	16px	16px

Easchiff (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Article review

Length	Newness	Adequate citations	Formatted citations	Reliable sources	Neutrality	Plagiarism
Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)	Easchiff (talk)

• This article is important. There are some difficulties. The lede sounds like the article will be company propaganda, which it is not; this should be improved before the article is used for DYK. The lede should note that the company uses proprietary technology that has been criticized. One important reference is not readily available online (Sullivan, Ann. Vasc. Surgery); I accept on good faith. The article by Nash (Current Cardiology Reports) doesn't appear to match the citation, which puzzled me. I wouldn't hold up the nomination for these issues, but note them as improvements.Easchiff (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've been working on this article and provided the sources you're concerned about. I'd be happy to email any pdfs of the journal articles. As for the Nash source, it's really just a short blurb in a collection of web alerts. I'll put the full text of the HealthGrades section below this comment, but commented out. — Scientizzle 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• The new references look good. I don't think Nash's actual article title ("Web Alert") is correctly cited in the Wikipedia article's reference. Also, perhaps the last 2 sentences from Nash's paragraph could be quoted as part of the reference. Easchiff (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• D'oh! The Nash title is erroneous (a copy-paste error) and will be corrected ASAP. I'll put the last two sentences within the reference...good suggestion. — Scientizzle 15:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• 16px For clarity. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article's lead. Mgrē@sŏn 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's better. The references in the lede could be strengthened. The best is the Tribune blog, but I don't know if that's edited to the same standards as regular newspaper articles. The other three are self-interested in various ways, and appear to be publicity pieces. Lourdes is touting its own high rating, and paid HealthGrades for the privilege of doing so. Overall I do think the article covers the subject fairly well. Easchiff (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• 16px The hook and article look good. Easchiff (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Returned this to the nom page from the queue because I find the article to be too promotional still. --Orlady (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I feel much better about the article's tone now. I'm going to take ALT2 back to the prep areas. --Orlady (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)