Talk:University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721093313/http://www.uhhospitals.org/AboutUH/Vision2010/tabid/1291/Default.aspx to http://www.uhhospitals.org/AboutUH/Vision2010/tabid/1291/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Verifiable source

I do not want to sound scolding nor do I intend to rant. But...

1. the 18 month old "advert" tag is utterly correct.

2. two of the referneces

• <ref name=name>Malick, Patricia D. Array Healthcare Facilities Solutions. Personal interview. 20 May 2009.</ref>
• <ref name=name2>Kraus, Shannon. HKS, Inc. Personal interview. 14 May 2009.</ref>

look to me as though someone was trying to design references which violate the rule that references must be verifiable to the maximum extent possible. There is absolutely no possible way to verify a "personal interview". If Wikipedia allowed this, then it would destroy the requirement that references be from reliable sources. Anyone could post their own original research and use a "personal interview" as a reference.

3. I have made over 7,300 edits, and this is only the second article that was so obviously written by the Public Relations Department at the institution the article is about. The original author had no idea how to name a reference, and violated the guidance that "Names must not be purely numeric; they should have semantic value so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors." In fact the editor who originally but these so-called references in, read the guidance where it says"

The syntax to define a named footnote is:

<ref name="name">content</ref>
To invoke the named footnote:
<ref name="name" />

and utterly failed to realize that the text "name" is a placeholder for the actual name the editor decides to use. They also spoke to their boss, and quoted her as a reference, i.e. item two in this three item list.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but the page was extraordinary in my extensive experience, and seemed to me to require a strong posting. Nick Beeson (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)