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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject St. Louis, a project to build and improve articles related to St. Louis and the surrounding metropolitan area. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.St. LouisWikipedia:WikiProject St. LouisTemplate:WikiProject St. LouisSt. Louis articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
User:Sam-2727 tagged the article as having a promotional tone. It is written not as an advertisement but as a brief overview of the history of how professional, religious women lived and worked for decades (before most women worked outside of the home). I assume the user means the part about the Deaconess Foundation or Chamberlain School of Nursing, as the most recent hospital building was razed years ago. If this is the case, I disagree with the tag. The article would be incomplete without mention of the organization's existence. I ask the user to list what is objectionable and how the text should be rewritten, expanded, or changed in order to remove this tag. Thank you. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, I would delete the "legacy" section. Both sentences are written promotionally. For instance, "dedicated to helping children." This is essentially stating an opinion (that they are "dedicated" to helping children) as if it was a fact, which isn't a neutral point of view. There are also some parts in the main body of the article that could use some language cleanup. For instance, "many difficult years" is stating opinion as fact, and so is "with a strict schedule." These are just examples: try looking through the article and removing instances similar to this. Feel free to ping me afterwards and I'll take a look to see if you've removed all the instances. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So your objections are as much about an unencyclopedic tone as with a promotional tone, then, User:Sam-2727? Because "many difficult years" and the "strict schedule" of the staff cannot be considered promotional. I will work on expanding the difficulties the organization faced before it sold and modifying the article otherwise to suit.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, I talked about the "fact" vs. "opinion" difference just so it makes sense as to why they seem advertisey to me. I see your point for those two examples, although I suppose the case could be made that talking about the "many difficult years" is to make people feel bad for the hospitals. Anyway, the general point still stands that there isn't a neutral point of view for some phrases, and advertisement-like includes having extraneous external links. You should also remove some of the external links, typically articles shouldn't contain many. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More on the years before closure is covered in the source, User:Sam-2727. I see "difficult" as synonymous with a word in the title of that news story, and also as an observation/reflection of everything that was going on as a hospital was dying, but it seems we disagree on. Now you say I included too many external links. Ok. I have removed some. I am curious as to why is your objection to the link quantity rather than to the content and their relevance or lack thereof to the article. I've seen articles with more links and to more promotional sites (two of these were to a newspaper and one was to a timeline with photos that is more of external link quality than source quality). For what it's worth, in the draft phase I had some of the historic photos linked in a "further reading" section, but photos aren't words, so I thought the external links section was the most appropriate option. Would you link me to policy on external links that tells me how many = correct? I have also minimized information on the existing organization and removed the reference to the strict schedule (that came directly from one of the history books about the organization, though without an example planner, so I can't say it differently in a way to suit.). Let me know what else is wrong with the article or whether I may now remove the tag or change it to unencyclopedic or something else that indicates its current quality. Have a good night. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DiamondRemley39, news stories aren't always written in the most neutral tone. Sometimes they'll choose to write very dramatically. See Wikipedia:External links. There's a lot info that guideline, but basically the relevant part is that external links (1) shouldn't repeat factual information that could be included in the article. Besides the official website and the picture, the other links should generally be avoided as they don't add to what could possibly be in the article. I think you've cleaned the article up enough though so I'm going to remove the template. This doesn't mean that all the problems were solved though. I would encourage you to keep expanding the article while maintaining a neutral tone. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for removing the tag, Sam-2727. After reviewing the external links, the only issue I saw was that there were two links to the same domain -- one to mainpage and one to the history. That is no longer the case. As the article on the current incarnation of the nursing school is Wikilinked, that suffices. Please name the other problem(s) to which you allude in your most recent comment, provided they are not related to its status as a start-class. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
