User talk:A.Hausker/Epic Systems

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 :)

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!