Talk:MedStar Health

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

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

News Release Tag

This article seems a bit too promotional. Not ridiculously, but to a noticeable degree. It doesn't seem to be critical at all, and things like the inclusion of the sponsorships don't help. That's my two cents. Gillesp (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any suggestions, please note them here. You're welcome to make the changes yourself and/or to discuss them here. Regarding your thoughts, above:

"It doesn't seem to be critical" - The question is, are there criticisms out there that have due weight and come from Reliable Sources? If so, let's add them!
"things like the inclusion of the sponsorships don't help" - I'm not sure specifically to which you refer. Do you mean things like their rankings, or foundation awards? In Healthcare, these things are often discriminators in terms of quality of care, and (so far as I've seen) are pretty widely noted in WP:SECONDARY:secondary sources.

Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As there's been no further changes since the discussion above, I'm inclined to remove the tag. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the citations are press releases or web pages of the subject, which is self promotion. Additional indications of conflict of interest are edits from IP 198.99.32.5 (identifiable using WHOIS as MedStar) here and at the related entity MedStar Harbor Hospital which was created primarily by VirginiaHarbor whose sole contributions are to that page. Notwithstanding the improvements made by JoeSperrazza and his expertise which exceed my own by a considerable degree, in my opinion the news release tag is appropriate.--BoboLink81 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. At first glance, I can't disagree. I would only say that many updates I did were also based on publicly available documents, such as their annual report, that were, indeed self-published. The challenge in writing about Hospitals is that most of the details that I think should be of interest to our readers (such as volume of patients, and the management team) are mostly only available from such self-published sources. The task at hand, for editors of this or any other hospitals, is to ensure that undue weight isn't given to such information. I tried to do so when I updated this entry - it seems I did not do a good enough job.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources (take 2)

Putting the primary tag in place. In deference to the 2014 conversation, I hear you on the issues hospitals (and private companies and...) face with getting verifiable 3rd party resources, but this is overwhelmingly reliant on the hospital webpage. Alaynestone (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MedStar Health. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some news coverage

This article is light on news coverage and independent media references.

If someone wants to flesh this out some more, here are some links:

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]