Talk:Raritan Bay Medical Center

Criticism of page

This article relies too much on references to primary sources. (March 2020) This article may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (March 2020) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (March 2020)

criticism 2 addressed: no, not too heavily; only the last sentences had primary resource, and that was necessary to make known where the rbmc is now, which is an important feature. the entire article before that, the vast majority of the article had none.

You know that press releases are not intellectually independent, right? Guy (help!) 00:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Per Wiki guidelines: "Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (except for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." such is the case here; self-published is the ONLY source I can find to know what is currently happening with rbmc. An article about a business: "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC) And, there was NOT excessive use of such; just a line out of 18.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

criticism of the use of a blog? response: per wiki guidelines blogs may be used in certain situations. "Is the article you're sourcing via a blog of a non-biographical nature (i.e., about computer science? Cooking? History about deceased individuals?) from a website that is known in the relevant subject circles as a source or authority? If the specific author of the specific blog post an expert or authority? In either case, the blog post may be fine to use." the blog contained a reprint of a newspaper article from 1983 that i used to get some of the early information on rbmc.

criticism of primary sources: per Wiki guidelines:"According to our content guideline on identifying reliable sources, reliable sources have most, if not all, of the following characteristics: It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s). It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes."

My sources are called primary; i would say they are secondary; in any case, whether primary or secondary, they all were ok, i believe.they met all of the guidelines met above.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mwinog2777, the use of the blog for promotional text is only part of the problem. A much larger part is the lack of independent non-press-release sources about the subject. Guy (help!) 08:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I noted on "Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Requested articles" that rbmc was a topic to that needed a page of its own, not just a redirect. i found it an interesting subject; i still fully disagree with you; the articles i used were analyses of the financial situation on n.j. hospitals; costs of running a hospital, reimbursements to low income areas, why hospitals were consolidating, results of interviews with politicians, etc, not simply press releases. the articles were not just about press releases but were in totality of what is happening to health care. i have reread paragraph 2, and there are no references to only press releases; all are discussions of the the need for the merger as noted by a secondary source; used only what was available; i could find nothing else. so be it. as i was writing, i did the best i could to avoid having the criticisms you outlined, and i still think it is a reasonable "start" article of "low importance." i should on the talk page immediately have said that reference 1 comes from a blog that had a photo of the original article; that's my bad. other than that i stand by my article, so be it. there is not enuf info out there to fully correct your criticisms, i'm afraid. these disagreements are not uncommon on wikipedia, but i don't think the presumed imperfections you are concerned about warrant the banner over the article in perpetuity. hopefully others will read the article and i can achieve a consensus. then again, maybe not.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Mwinog2777, if there's not enough info then the subject almost certainly fails WP:GNG. Guy (help!) 16:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

criticism of too close associated with the subject; they were written by reporters , except for the last paragraph, which according to wiki guidelines can be used.Mwinog2777 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work! I think that the tags that are already on there are appropriate and recommend adding independent sources..

North8000 (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)