Talk:Thriveworks

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation

	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 5 November 2024 by reviewer Reconrabbit (talk · contribs).

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

mfunderburk (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Comments left by AfC reviewers

Comment: The sources establish that Thriveworks exist, but they appear to be mostly press releases, or are otherwise promotional pieces. It is unclear what is particularly notable about Thriveworks. Recon rabbit 20:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments copied from User talk:Reconrabbit regarding this page

Hello,

Thank you again for reviewing my Draft: Thriveworks Article. I appreciate your feedback and want to ensure I fully address the concerns regarding notability.

I believe Thriveworks meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria, and the sources I provided are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the company. However, I would value your insight on why these sources may not be considered sufficient, and how I can ensure the article meets the necessary standards.

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, a primary test of notability is whether independent, unrelated individuals have published non-trivial works focused on the subject. I believe the sources provided meet this standard, as they are unbiased news outlets with no vested interest in Thriveworks. Additionally, Wikipedia requires independent content to include original opinion, analysis, and fact-checking, which I feel is evident in our sources.

Given this, can you reconsider your position? Else can you advise what I can do in the article to adjust it. Please know I'm committed to making any necessary adjustment to meet Wikipedia’s guidelines given my COI.

Thank you for your time and guidance. Mfunderburk (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I will admit that the structure of the draft is rather bare after restructuring it according to Bonadea's instructions. I will also note that editors including myself are cautious about the provenance of extremely local news sources like Patch Media and articles like those from Behavioral Health Business that describe business transactions in the organization's own words. I will make some small changes - as I feel like more can be drawn from each of these sources while maintaining neutral point of view - and request a third opinion from the Articles for Creation reviewers. Recon rabbit 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mfunderburk, I'm another AfC reviewer and have taken another look at your draft. @Reconrabbit was correct to decline it based on the sources: I agree that every source is reliable but what I am not seeing is independence. Every source is based off a press release or interview with the CEO, and there is not enough independent analysis and discussion to quite put us over the edge of notability yet. I would class quite a few of the sources you've used as churnalism and therefore we can't use them to establish notability.

If you can give me three, just three, really strong sources that each meet the following requirements: reliable, independent, significant coverage. We really want to see in-depth independent analysis separate to a regurgitated press release or interview.

Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Qcneand @Reconrabbit, Thank you both for the detailed feedback—it’s truly helpful, and I appreciate the time you’ve taken to help me navigate this process. I completely understand your points about the need for reliable, independent, and in-depth sources that go beyond interviews or press releases. I’ll keep that in mind for future drafts.

For the ‘top three’ sources, following the additional instructions provided at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources, I’d recommend these as our strongest:

-https://medcitynews.com/2024/08/eleanor-health-thriveworks-launch-partnership-to-support-patients-with-sud/

-https://www.phillyvoice.com/happiness-america-mental-health-attitudes-counseling/

-https://www.buyoutsinsider.com/regal-hcp-earns-healthy-returns-with-thriveworks-dental365/

Additionally, I had a question about sources that reviewed our company completely unprompted and independently—no conflict of interest exists with these. However, I was cautious about including them since they sometimes read like a marketing piece. These sources are:

-https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/thriveworks-review/

-https://www.everydayhealth.com/emotional-health/thriveworks-counseling-review/

I've seen similar pages sourced in articles on other mental health companies, so I wanted to confirm if these might be acceptable. If they qualify, I believe they could provide additional independent analysis needed to strengthen our case for notability.

Thanks again for your time and guidance. It’s genuinely appreciated! Mfunderburk (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Qcneand @Reconrabbit just thought I'd check back up here! Thank you both so much for your time! Mfunderburk (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]