Talk:Evidence Aid

Neutrality tag.
The article seems to have a promotional tone and much of the language used is of a promotional nature. Huddsblue (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Of particular use would be a clear, concise and encyclopedic description of what the organization is. First is it a non/not for profit? How and where is it formally organized a is it a UK LLC, a US corp., a US 501c or what? This belongs first and foremost in the lead. Next can the activities be stated as factual, what it actually does. An initiative to do something isn't really an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article but an organization that does something is, see the difference? The goals and motivations are important but first state factually, what it is and what it does. Concise and factual rather than promotional etc. What the organiztions wants to do and why then follows logically as more detail is developed. When it started, who started and why, the goals. Next some tight clear (read very brief) description of the methods used this should come from secondary sources and include some analysis of if these methods are sound, effective etc. Then briefly description of the structure following logically from the methods employed. Again third party secondary sources evaluating the significance, importance, effeciveness are what is best. Then hopefully what would make up the meat of the article, and could be placed right after history and before organization and methodology would be, notable accomplishments. Without some pretty notable actual achievements the article should be reduced to a stub noting the existence and purpose only and that very briefly as reported in independent, third party, secondary sources.
 * I hope this serves as useful guidance on what a WP article should be. Remember this is an encyclopedia, start with, "the subject is..." "the subject is notable for..." use facts reported in reliable sources, avoid, jargon, catch phrases, promotional and inspirational tone and phrasing. Try to use high quality sources, if the organization has substantial accomplishments, achievements or contributions some high quality reliable sources will have reported and analyzed this. Involved, primary or low quality sources don't really support the contention that this is an important organization making a valuable contribution. Scholarly analysis of the model employed or the results achieved is what the article needs to be based on.
 * Next "relevant publications" if they are used as a reference they don't need to be repeated. If they are notable enough to mention in the article, they will have been discussed in the reliable sources, otherwise they don't belong in an encyclopedia.
 * I am working on making the references into footnotes per WP style. Unless it is necessary to attribute a statement the source is merely footnoted, not referred to in the text. State a fact, support it with a citation, discussion, analysis and evaluation is not necessary and can veer into original research. By all means respond to the input on this talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I have worked on removing weasel words and content plus adding more references and also added links in from Cochrane and typhoon Haiyan page. I took out testimonials and quotes except left one in the awareness section. I tried to state more where the org started what they do etc and took out content that might be construed as promotional. If I have missed things or are blind to them I am happy to make changes so that this is a good page AmyEBHC (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on contributing an article to WP. The work you have done has made substantial improvement. I will make some edits myself and engage in further discussion in separate sections. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am so excited to be able to do this and it would not be possible without all the help from other more senior editors. Thank you for the edits, I will use this format and style in future,it makes the article more readable and looks professional, many thanksAmyEBHC (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The author
Also appears to have very close ties to this company. I have reason to believe that this could be a promotional article. Huddsblue (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above has been retracted diff. "I did not have enough reason to believe you were working for Evidence Aid and I rescind my statement. Hopefully we can both continue to contribute our knowledge towards the quest for Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia ever created :-) Huddsblue (talk)" This was found acceptable by the editor in question diff. It is my hope that all involved will continue to enthusiastically contribute to improving the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation
I have no COI, membership or financial interest in this Evidence Aid org. It is an organization made up of volunteers for disaster relief. I work with none of their people on any common project. The only tie is writing a blog about them. If you would like to point out specific language you feel is of a promotional nature I will correct this. It is all backed up and referenced by accomplished and respected authors in the field of medicine and disaster relief from reputable academic journals. I had it in my sandbox and was advised by Wiki Project Medicine that though not perfect it was ready to be launch as an active page. If you have reasons state them clearly please, otherwise it is just an accusation without evidence. I have reason to believe is not sufficient AmyEBHC (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Huddsblue, any editor can remove such a tag, especially if it's a bad faith addition. You're supposed to AGF. Making such a charge without evidence is a serious personal attack. Do you have any evidence? If not, please remove the tag, apologize to Amy, and we won't need to visit AN/I. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer apologies for any offence caused has been given. Thank you, AmyEBHC (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Lede
The lead section could use some more editing. The first sentence should state "what Evidence Aid is". Next should come "what Evidence Aid does and briefly how". Then founder, date of establishment etc. Followed by summary of accomplishments. Think encyclopedia. The reader wants to answer the most basic question first, then get a general understanding. There is repetition that needs cut. The lede should be a very concise overview of the article. See WP:Lede, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points..." - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"International aid contributions"
This section needs more references. They should be third-party, independent secondary references. If these contributions are notable and significant enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia, they will have been covered in quality sources. The best would be journal articles noting and evaluating these contributions. Publications other than journals that cover the field of disaster relief/humanitarian aid are good sources. Other possible references would be newspaper and magazine articles that explicitly discuss the activites/contributions of Evidence Aid. At the very least some documentation that these activities occurred is needed. Evidence Aid itself is not really an acceptable source, Blogs and websites have limited standing as reliable sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay I have found journal reference, they were also listed on Evidence Aid so thought that was redundant but agree they should be cited separately. I am travelling and speaking the next few days but I will do this as quickly as possible and very much appreciate the insight AmyEBHC (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Guardian article.
It's dated 2011 but hopefully this will be of use to you:

Thanks great article, I added this AmyEBHC (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)