Talk:Logan Health

Hospitals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

contest need for citations[edit]

--Andy Apple (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) This article, because it is such a short article, does not need additional citations for verification. Additional citations are not warranted because the content does not require it. The article currently has four citations for verification and each citation meets the guidelines for proper placement.Andy Apple (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has responded to this issue, I will remove this tag.--Andy Apple (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People have responded identifying why additional citations are needed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

This article has a tag entitled "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations". The Talk page indicates that "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals on Wikipedia". It seems that the tag should be removed. --Andy Apple (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has responded to this issue, I will remove this tag. Andy Apple (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you didnt get a response, but being part of a "project" merely means that the topic is likely of interest to the "project", not that it meets the notability requirements for a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More links have been added that are relevant to the context. There are now plenty of links and I think adding any more links would make it link heavy and harder to read. I suggest that the link tag should be removed.--Andy Apple (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number of links is only a small part of the "equation". What makes something "notable" for Wikipedia is that third party reliable sources have discussed the subject in more than a passing manner.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Apple (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Since nobody has responded to this issue, I will remove this tag.--Andy Apple (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article most certainly still needs more and better sources and hardly any of the claims have appropriate inline citations to reliably published sources that verify the claims made. And the sources that are included, merely verify existence, they do not establish that third parties have covered the subject in a significant manner-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I have added additional reliable secondary sources about the topic to meet general notability guidelines. I'm really trying hard to meet all of the guidelines for this topic.Andy Apple (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC) I have made the changes from list to prose per wiki suggestion.[reply]