Talk:Kaiser Richmond Medical Center

message: Recently the gallery of images was removed uner the rationale: "Remove superfluous "gallery" of unattractive, uninformative photos. Any information in this section should be integrated into the article text."
But the images are not superfalous, one is of construction, one of the inside, one of the front entry, and the main non gallery photo is of the campus from afar. So clearly not superfalous. As for unatracctive i dont see what makes they the least bit unattractive. as for uninformative, the construction photo clearly provides a visual for the ongoing construction and the façade one a clearer view of the entry, and the chair one, helps expalin kaisers worldview, they should not be removed without discussion and should not be removed by inaccurate edit summaries. if the consensus is to removed of remove some, i say we dont removed until they can be placed in commons with their own category.CholgatalK! 18:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of the three pictures either, but until the discussion settles, they should stay.  For me the construction and interior shots don't display anything unique about the medical center (at one point it was constructed in a perfectly ordinary way and the interior contains factory made chairs and standard hallways).  The exterior picture is OK, but isn't very different from the existing one (necessary admission: I took the earlier exterior shot myself).  So, my vote is to remove the construction and interior shot and retain only one of the exterior. - Richfife 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Move to commons in a dedicated gallery with interwiki link then? Know how to do that?CholgatalK! 22:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll try to find out.  In the meanwhile, I think IL2BAs version is a better bet.  - Richfife 15:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the arbitrary gutting of the services list?CholgatalK! 17:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gallery 

message: Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my requests for neutral opinions and also those of you whom I did not ask personally, Your're comments were fair and polite I wish everyone were as polite and even encouraging as you are on this talk page, a quality i will try and emulate. please feel free to ask me for my opinion whenever the occasion presents itself, i hope you all have a nice day.CholgatalK! 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: This is really poor.  There were refs dotted in the text so I added the cite.php stuff, but what poor referencing.  please look at  to do this better.  Are they seriously all the same reference, too?  Fiddle Faddle 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now this link is broken and the whole ref mess has therefore been removed.--Diannaa (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: I have now read the article.  It reads like an advert, so much so that I almost nominated it for deletion.  Creating lists of departments just to fill article space is not encyclopaedic editing.  If this is a notable centre then its article also needs to be notable.  This requires an almost total rewrite, I'm afraid.  Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]
*This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 8 additive terms, a bit too much.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 23:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have run the automated peer review tool over the article 

message: The nomination is intended to cause one of two outcomes:
#A major cleanup and rewriting of the article to make it a worthy stub (at least), with full citations, and properly asserted notability
#Deletion of the article as unworthy to be here
I would prefer outcome 1, but the article is so poor I will accept outcome 2 and be content.  Please contribute to the discussion on the AfD page in order that a good consensus may be reached either way.  And, if you are editing the article in the meantime, please note on the AfD page when you have made substantial edits in order that those who have expressed an opinion so far may reconsider.  Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To seek to ensure as good a discussion as possible, and to attempt to get knowledgable editors with editing time available to come and save the article I have placed a neutral comment/ request at Talk:Kaiser Permanente  Fiddle Faddle 16:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Deletion 

message: This is why  was put there in the first place.  The whole thing needs a massive rewrite.  While notability may have been agreed at AfD, the rest of the issues have to be solved.  Removing the template does not remove the issues.
Copying a great list of departments from the medical center's website is not the same as writing a good article.  That list is a list of departments found in medical centers.  By all means note the unusual ones, but lose the rest.  Fiddle Faddle 21:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article has issues 

message: Services requires a major prune. It's a hospital. What else would it provide? And I am tempted to trash the Transportation section as being a guide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Services and Transportation sections