This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
I have added the POV template because of a "serious lack of balance" in this article. It is not OK that the only chapter in this article should be a long description of controversies. These can only be discussed alongside other details of the company, such as history, operations, etc. I am adding this warning after I have previously combated deletions of controversies from the Prem Reddy article. Fairness works both ways and more balance is necessary for this article. Unbalanced articles have a bearing on the overall quality of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It's POV, but not for the reasons you describe. If controversies are the only noteworthy aspect of a subject, then they're going to make up the bulk of the article. The intro, on the other hand, is so biased that I can only assume it was written by PHS or someone paid to manage their online reputation. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
1. The first paragraph does not cite the source of the statistics, and the claim that "Prime Healthcare hospitals do not use a diagnosis of malnutrition to increase reimbursement" is cited from "sources at PHS". Proper, verifiable sources need to be cited here...
2. The first sentence of the second paragraph reads, "In addition, the higher than average malnutrition rates at Prime Healthcare hospitals are the result of Prime Healthcare's commitment to providing high quality healthcare for all of its patients for which Prime Healthcare should be applauded rather than criticized." (Emphasis Mine). The italicized portion of the sentence is obviously lacking an impartial tone and should probably just be deleted.
I've added additional POV type tagging and reworded/removed certain phrasing that was evidently bias. More remains however and I'm unsure on what deserves to stay and what should go. Specifically the entire "Response to Recent Criticism" section seems un-like wikipedia, and I believe this information, what information is relevant and reliable, deserves to be folded in to the Recent Criticism section itself. As well, there appears to be frequent references to the Thomson Reuters award, including a secondary citation from 100tophospitals.com, which is run by a company that was previously part of Thomson Reuters, and the relevant data is Thomson Reuters era data. I believe this was used as a way to weasel in a second reference to their award from Thomson Reutuers and one of these two citations of this data deserves to be edited out for redundancy. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)