Talk:Navina Evans

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hoary in topic Prose

Prose

edit

There are serious problems with the prose, Journalist0071.

We read for example that "she led on ensuring effective delivery in terms of quality, performance and effectiveness and had lead responsibility for partnerships and integrated care". (The quotation marks are mine.) This sounded vaguely impressive, but I didn't know what it actually meant. In the hope of finding out, I clicked on the link to the reference that came with this, and there read that "she led on ensuring effective delivery in terms of quality, performance and effectiveness and had lead responsibility for partnerships and integrated care". Problems:

  1. Yes, they're exactly the same. More often than not, direct quotations are not desirable; but when they are used, they require quotation marks.
  2. The author is unspecified.
  3. This looks like the kind of prose that the NHS is -- very unfortunately, I happen to think -- compelled to churn out and that may satisfy certain politicians but that does no more than this. I mean, she was ultimately (?) responsible for the quality, performance, and effectiveness of what? Partnership with what or whom? Integration of what?

A Wikipedia article should not be intended to impress the reader. It should instead inform the reader. Using reliable, signed sources, please write a draft that cuts the BS and provides the facts. -- Hoary (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

In my view, this three sentence quotation, The loss of life of any patient is a tragedy and my heart goes out to the family and friends of those individuals. We have been focussed on learning lessons following these incidents and are encouraged that our progress has been recognised by inspectors. We will continue to work to improve how care is provided and to embed improvements across our services. adds nothing of encyclopedic value. That's precisely the sort of statement that officials with access to competent damage control advice regularly issue. It all sounds very nice, but when you examine it more closely, there is no substantive content there at all. Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Very true. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

Sources must be reliable, where reliability is as defined by and for Wikipedia. Necessary (though insufficient) for reliability is independence from the subject. Yet the statement that "Dr. Navina Evans CBE [is] the Chief Workforce, Training & Education Officer at NHS England" is currently sourced to a blog entry by NE herself. It could be argued that it was published by the NHS, which would never allow publication of such a claim if this were false. But an article on a notable subject shouldn't have to resort to this kind of thing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply