User talk:A.Hausker/Epic Systems

MH final comments
As we've already discussed this a bit over email, and since you seem to be getting plenty of advice on the Talk page, I'll keep my comments here brief.

Essentially, I think the article is in fairly good shape, so I'd suggest that you continue to work with the other Wikipedia editor on the main page. I've posted a comment on the Talk page there so I can be a part of the conversation if needed, but since your interaction seems to be moving in a productive direction and it's your article, I'll keep my nose out of it as much as possible. Please continue to discuss and mutually edit your changes with that editor through May 8. If, in the end, you think that version is more complete, let me know and I'll assess it rather than your Sandbox draft.

As to my own comments, I'd identify tone as still the central issue with this article. As previously noted, this likely comes from using a lot of Epic's own publications; to combat it, you'll likely need outside sources. You should also re-read the entire article as critically as possible, always trying to think of what an opponent would say to your claims. For example, in the 'Awards and Recognition' section, you've sourced all the praise for the company, but haven't challenged it or provided alternate perspectives. Where is this praise coming from and why? Who are Peer60? Do they deserve to have the only word on the rankings? Do other rankings include Epic, and if not, could this fact help put the praise given by Peer60 into context? The strategy of a sort of 'internal debate', which you can also usefully apply to future academic work, means thinking about all the ways people could poke holes in your argument and trying to cover these areas before that happens.

Since there are two of you, this could be an opportunity to have an actual debate: have one person go through the article (maybe in Google Docs or Word with 'track changes') and put in as many counterpoints as they can, then have the other person accept or rebut them. For example, regarding the statement that 'the top NIH grant recipients use Epic', one could ask why looking at the top NIH grant recipients is the right metric here - might the overall college rankings not be a better method for identifying whether Epic is really used by prestigious institutions? Has the NIH metric just been chosen because it happens to overlap with Epic adoption? If so, it would no longer be a meaningful indicator of acceptance, as the circular reasoning of 'Epic is used at many institutions where Epic is used' would disqualify it from adding to this article. But if you the other person had outside evidence to suggest that NIH grants were the right metric, they could add it, and this criticism would lose its bite. Your discussion with the page editor seems likely to go in this direction, so debating the potentially problematic points between yourselves may be a way of getting out in front of the issue.

All in all though, I'm glad you're getting a response, and you're doing a good job in terms of using the public side of Wikipedia to the fullest! Keep up the good work, and don't hesitate to email me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Allie and Trystan!

Hope everything is well back home. Stay safe, and feel free to reach out if anything I wrote is unclear! That being said, you guys did a great job:

Everything in the article appears to contain information relevant to the topic. You maintain a neutral tone throughout, equally presenting viewpoints that directly contradict all the while refraining from interjecting your own opinions. For example, in the last two sentences of your second paragraph under “UK experience”, this is evident. You present the concerns regarding Epic with transparency. I was very impressed with how you balanced the content of the article; adding so much content can be overwhelming but the organization was intuitive and clever. The lead is concise yet informative.

Now onto the technical stuff. For your citations, the links work! The only one that appeared red was citation twenty-five, but that happened with my article too. (I don’t think it really matters though; at this point, I’m just looking for something wrong with this article, and it’s pretty difficult haha). Each section’s length appears to be equal to its importance to the article’s subject. Each section is also presented in a logical format.

You used well-known sources like BBC, The New York Times, and Forbes, which are known for their integrity and (arguably) their neutrality. The sources you used were strategic in supporting the claims of the article, and most if not all of your facts are accompanied by a source. As there is no outward bias in any of the facts you present, there is no need to comment on how you address such bias.

The only thing I would consider revising (again, I’m grasping at straws here) is the “Product and Market” section of the article. I think the product is described perfectly, I wouldn’t change that at all. The role of Epic in the healthcare industry is also well accounted for. However, speaking about Epic’s partnerships might not necessarily fall under this category, especially when you describe the partnerships in great detail. Additionally, separating the hospitals like Hopkins and New York-Presbyterian from that of the “Select Customer Wins” doesn’t clearly distinguish why each hospital was put under either category. I assume the prior was for more established hospitals under more lucrative contracts. I have no problem with this, but if this wasn’t your intention, I think this feedback would be of use!

Other mini notes: 1) Company motto may want to be capitalized? Not sure. 2) The paragraph containing and following the “Chronicles database management system” lacks citations.

Paige :)

Hi!

I peer-reviewed your article. You can find the comments here: User:A.Hausker/Epic Systems/Gkim70 Peer Review

Gkim70 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

MH comments
This article is certainly improving, but needs some work in terms of citations, tone, and organization as you complete your next draft. Keep the following in mind as you edit:

1. There is some interesting material in the 'Select Customer Wins' section, but there ought to be a clearer justification for why these examples are being included in the article. One option would be to work them into a corporate history, perhaps using them as an example of how the company has picked up business recently. Alternatively, you could use this information in a section on competition. Taking apart this section and using its information elsewhere would both get around the potentially too-positive language of 'wins' and the relatively weak grouping of a 'selection'.

2. The article could benefit from more sub-headings, which might also show you places to expand. For instance, the first section could easily be divided into 'Product', 'Market', and 'Customers'. This would make it more readable and potentially show gaps in coverage.

3. As you rely relatively heavily on sources from the company and its employees, make sure you're questioning their claims adequately. This doesn't mean that you have to assume the worst in every situation, simply that you should double-check promotional texts and and find corroborating sources from publications not linked to the company or industry wherever possible. In addition, apply the principle of 'show, don't tell' to make sure the tone remains neutral: rather than telling us that the company has been 'strongly praised', for instance, simply list the awards it has won. This will let the reader draw their own conclusions about the praiseworthiness of the company; if the evidence is good, it should speak for itself. The same is true of the company's philanthropic work.

4. Since you have footnote citations, it's not generally necessary to cite the source of a claim in the text (digitalhealth, cor example). If you want to make the point that you think a claim is dubious or not widely shared, try using the passive voice ('reportedly', 'it has been said that', etc.) to achieve a similar effect in a more encyclopedic style.

5. Make sure every fact has a citation, particularly in the first part of the Product and Market section.

Also, please post a comment to the Talk page of the original article explaining that you're drafting a new version of this article for a WikiEducation class, providing a short summary of the changes you've made (dividing it into sections, adding information, etc.) so that when you begin moving this across in a couple of weeks, it won't come as a surprise.

Read your peer reviews and continue to revise in the sandbox (all your old drafts are saved automatically); let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss any of these comments further! — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.hin.ck (talk • contribs) 04:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)