Talk:SSM Health

message: This page is inteend to be a factual represention of SSM Health Care. Not unlike many other Health System pages currently on Wikipedia (Carolinas Healthcare System)
(above posted by User:SSMHC on March 15)
:Tagging this as Speedy AFD ***one minute*** after it was first posted is grossly unfair.  The user has an unfortunate name for this type of article but it was linked before the article started.  I will try to clean it up in Wikipedia format if the user doesn't quite do it.  Americasroof 20:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, excuse me for the tag. I browsed through it and read quite like an ad. Now it doesn't, it's good. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also, a question: By "user", are you referring to me? Because I can't see what my username has to do with the context of the article.--Orthologist 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments.  By user I meant SSMHC (probably not the best user name for writing an article about SSMHC).  In any event, I think there  are some newbie mistake but the article is coming along nicely.  A 20-hospital system is definitely notable.  Americasroof 01:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any suggestions on how to make this page more consistent with the Wikipedia style please let me know. I am a "newbie" but am eager to learn. Thank you for your comments. SSMHC 12:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One might object to some lists in the article. However, this is perfectly the case to use them. The prose is very good and the text flows nicely. I personally don't see something bad with the article now.--Orthologist 13:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hi 
I recognize no one has written here on this talk page for 12 years, but there are multiple problems with this SSM article. 
Promotional Tone:  Contrast what is written with Bloomberg's more neutral "company overview."  https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4163043   You can use (and cite) the Bloomberg information.  
Missing Citations:  The history section has lots of uncited information.  It needs citations or it needs to be cut.  
Incorrect Citations:  It also needs citations that work.  Clicking on the link in the first footnote (it might not be first if people add more later) does not take you to that or any of the provided information.  I looked around the website the link took you to (I switched from the general page to a "history" section) and could not find the information in the SSM article there either. Track down somebody's old source(s) or cut it.  The same goes for footnotes 2 and 3 -- both are dead links that don't provide a source for the information.  And they are not formatted correctly. (At least, 3 certainly isn't.)
Inappropriate material for an encyclopedia:  "During this time, the sisters relied on God to provide for their needs as they cared for the poor." (This sounds like it was just paraphrased or quoted from its religious source.)  Someone already asked for a citation for this. Without a source it sounds like you are asserting divine intervention, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. Even with a source, you will want to revise it to prevent leaving this impression.
Poor organization:  "adopted the electronic health record early on" does this belong here or in the history section?  Is it even necessary?  (again, "early on" out of context is promotional.) "In 2013, Dean Health System..." Similarly, this sounds like it belongs in the history section.  Wikipedia has a convention of leaving introductions with few citations, but this only works if the material below expands on the information and provides sources.  So, first cite your sources and then, if you can develop the material into a longer article, you can extract a general introduction, knowing you have the material cited below.  
Right now the most valuable part is the lists, which also have no citations.  
Someone else has already flagged this page for Conflict of Interest, perhaps because most of the edits made are by IP addresses that overwhelming, or only, make edits to the SSM article, leaving the impression of an interested party. Whether or not this is the case, a good page would record both sides of SSM entrance into the debates of the day, which currently only have a single reference -- Obamacare.  It would also address various social challenges that it has faced as the corporation becomes, what Bloomberg calls, "a multi-institutional healthcare system."
Good luck
Adjprofe (talk) 07:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple issues with SSM article