Talk:Whitecoat Health Service Directory

Rife with ref inflation
This article is rife with inflated references... mostly the same ref cited multiple times to make the ref list look bigger.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed-- referenced dropped from 25+ to about 4.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

How can this be improved
This was the first article that i have ever written. Obviously, it didn't go too well! Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. It appears that the article has been edited and sections have been removed. In its current state with the edits applied, would it be acceptable to remain as a Wikipedia page? What would be the best way to improve this page to better meet the Wikipedia guidelines? I did a lot of research, and I'd love to be able to get this page Wikipedia ready! OphiraGrey (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I welcome your good intentions! However the page you posted was so rife with promotional language and bad sources that I honestly think it may be better off being deleted. Once I trimmed it down, there are really only three very weak references left. It was written in a very very very promotional tone. We will have to wait and see what other editors and perhaps the deleting admin think. Happy editing!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, could you please let us know if you have some connection with the company? Thanks. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback. I truly appreciate the time you have taken to improve the page! Thank you for being frank, i'll certainly apply these learnings in the future. I realise what you mean about the promotional tone, and i completely agree with all of your points. I am a content producer, and i've had some experience writing content in the healthcare industry. I simply used Whitecoat to gain some experience on writing a Wikipedia page. I thought because it was a niche topic it would work well as a page.OphiraGrey (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok then! Have look at the difference between the first and most recent versions of the page. the main problems were the excessive promotional language and the lack of references to establish notoriety. I just went and had a look in Google news and there are lots of good references. That's why I took the tag off for speedy deletion, as I think they are notable.That aspect was very hard to see in the original version. The thing to do to improve a page is not to add text, it's to add claims and statements that have sourcs to back them up. I think the page is defintiely notable enough to stay in Wikipedia now. I probably should not have jumped on it so quickly after publication, but you were inadvertently using a technique that spammers use, which is to use the same reference over and over again to make the reference list look very long. When you add references to this page (please do!), try using the cite toolbar. If you click Cite web, you can fill in the URL, title etc, and at the bottom left of the box there is an entry called "refname". Onece you give it a name (for example "SMH1"), you can use that ref over and over again by clicking on named references in the Cite toolbar! In any case don't be scared off by my editing. You made the page, and I am pretty sure it is staying. Just be sure in future editing to back up what you are saying with references, and to keep to the point. Flowery, promotional or expansive langauge is not needed here. In other words: today is not a "Beautiful spring say full of possibility"-- on wikipedia, today is March 23 2016. Happy editing! Drop me a line on my talk page if you have questions. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for all of your feedback! I didn't realise i was using a poor (spammy) referencing technique (i think this only emphasises my inexperience). I realise now i need to be more careful with the neutrality of the articles tone, along with utilising the cite toolbar. I will be sure to look for better references and add them to the article. I'll mention the changes on her first, to save you from having to go in a fix it all! OphiraGrey (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! You do not need anyone's permission to edit, just go ahead! Everyone is equal here--nobody is in charge really. See WP:BEBOLD. Also, don't forget to sign your comments, by putting four "~" tilde marks at the end. Welcome aboard.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I think you've made this experience a very pleasant one! I keep forgetting to add the four "~". I'll make sure i stop doing that! OphiraGrey (talk) 03:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality and promotion tags
This article reeks of bias. Just look at the titles of the sources, then look at what they are actually used to support in the article. "Doctors See Red Over Whitecoat Website" is only used to say Whitecoat "allow[s] their members to easily search and compare healthcare providers". "Launch of website to rate NZ doctors a 'serious concern', says medical union" is only used to say Whitecoat "aim[s] to promote transparency to the New Zealand health market". That's two criticism pieces spun to only support Whitecoat and their agenda. I haven't checked any others yet. This article has major flaws and probably requires a complete rewrite. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've decided to address the issue myself. I found the article had three sources that focused on criticism of Whitecoat, that were all spun entirely to promote the website. I've since used these sources to build a criticism section. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)