Talk:The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice

Dartmouth Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Omitted reference to this school since it does not exist. Substituted "Dartmouth's Graduate Arts and Sciences Programs" which seems to be the official title for the collection of programs.

--Loanpine (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100626110018/http://www.thehealthcareblog.com:80/the_health_care_blog/2010/06/the-dartmouth-team-responds-again-to-mr-harris-of-the-new-york-times-.html to http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/06/the-dartmouth-team-responds-again-to-mr-harris-of-the-new-york-times-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit requested on 24 February 2016

Is it possible to review the revisions here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Dartmouth_Institute_for_Health_Policy_and_Clinical_Practice&oldid=706670073 and determine if they are suitable to replace the current article? This revision includes updated sources and a timeline of the Institute's work to date. Thank you.Sgagne2244 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Gnome de plume; your proposed revision is too promotional as it stands and must be rewritten if you wish to have it merged into the article. The most obvious red flags are phrases that are frequently used in press releases, but are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. These promotional terms include phrases such as "world leader", and "affordable, high-performing". Just as importantly, watch for sentences that sound vaguely positive, but don't actually tell the reader anything specific. They should be condensed and written more tersely. For example, "CHIRP is comprised of five complementary projects looking at characteristics that lead to the adoption of innovation, characteristics of the innovations themselves, and their impact on performance" could be rewritten as "CHIRP operates several projects that study how innovations improve the performance of healthcare organizations." So for now, your revision is declined. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, thanks very much Gnome de plume and Altamel for your advice. Very helpful! I'm following up as I have a new draft of this article to review. I posted it on my sandbox page. Is it possible to review the draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgagne2244/sandbox and determine if it can replace the current article? I work at The Institute and we realized this page had not been updated in a while with current sources and project descriptions so we have included them in this draft. I submitted the changes last week using the Request Edit template and wanted to check to see if this is the correct process for submitting edits. Thanks in advance for your help! Sgagne2244 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

New version of article to review

Following the suggestions made regarding the February 24, 2016 edits, I have a new draft of this article to review on my sandbox page. Is it possible to review the draft here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgagne2244/sandbox and determine if it can replace the current article? I work at The Institute and we realized this page had not been updated in a while with current sources and project descriptions so we have included them in this draft. Thank you in advance for your advice and assistance. Sgagne2244 (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

New Draft Follow-up 4/20/16

@Altamel and Gnome de plume: as you have reviewed this entry before, could you please review the new changes I have proposed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sgagne2244/sandbox and/or suggest the best way to move forward? I would greatly appreciate your assistance. Many thanks. Sgagne2244 (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sgagne2244 How would you feel about the following changes -

1. Remove references to all publications which originate in Dartmouth.
2. Delete all sentences which are not followed with a citation
3. Remove all external links in the body of the article. Per WP:EL, eligible links can go at the bottom

The idea is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a mirror of what third-party journalism and research says about a topic, and not for example a copy of what an organization says about itself or collection of unsupported claims. In general, the advice to organizations is that Wikipedia articles should be a summary of what people other than themselves and financial partners have said of the organization. I could help more, but I think addressing the above would be the best start. Thoughts? To what extent would this work? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Concur with what User:Bluerasberry said above. The submission still has traces of promotionalism left in it, and there are the issues with references indicated above. In particular, the claim that TDI influenced the Affordable Care Act is sourced to an article in the New Yorker, but the article was published before the ACA's predecessor bills were even introduced. Hence, the article cited does not actually show that the ACA was directly influenced by TDI research, only that both were concerned with similar healthcare reform areas. The claim that TDI influenced Vermont Act 128 is sourced to one of Dartmouth's own publications—it would be preferable to cite an outside source here. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)