Talk:AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

FieldsTom (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
IEauthor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

This

This userpage is not intended to promote a company or product but to inform Wikipedia readers about a research-based government clearinghouse on health care innovations. Wikipedia approved a "stub" for the National Guideline Clearinghouse by the same government agency so not sure why this article was tagged for deletion.

Since I am new to this, I would appreciate your comments and suggestions to make this page more acceptable.

Sincerely,

IEauthor (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)IEauthor — IEauthor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

August 2013 Updates

I am trying to address some of the issues flagged in this article.

1) "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (July 2013)"

The site is one project that AHRQ sponsors. I am in the process of identifying additional sources. Do the sources have to provide an overview of the site? Or can they reference the site's content. Most of the links to this site come from organizations or authors that have identified a particular profile of interest. For example, an EMS site might mention one of the EMS profiles available on the site. Does this help establish notability or would the article need to describe the site as a whole?

2) "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. (November 2010)"

There are now more third-party sources.

3) "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (August 2013)"

I am the current Web Content Manager for the site. I believe that the profiles contained on the site provide information that may be relevant for other articles. Therefore, I would like this article to describe the program in a credible manner.

4) "This article appears to be written like an advertisement. (August 2013)"

I made some edits today that should help change this tone. Any advice about how to improve this article is appreciated. If I have sufficiently addressed any of these issues I would appreciate someone with more Wikipedia experience removing the relevant notifications at the top of the page. Meanwhile, I plan to make small edits that I believe are in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. FieldsTom (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I took off warning banners #2 and #4. Someday we can take off #3, which is a new one to me. It's only relevant if the article's problematic. It doesn't need to be warned about forever, but I prefer not to rush since someone thought it was significant in recent context, and we earn their trust by taking that seriously.

Regarding #1, notability: the article does not need to give any overview of the site but should show evidence that the site was used and significant -- e.g. references to profiles or a statements that they were used. Yes, references to the site's profiles by notable and reliable sources help, although I'm not sure how to list evidence like that. Can we find statements or evidence that some profiles on the Exchange include examples that were never previously announced? That it is a unique source, or a source of news?

I'm ruminating on whether the infobox should use Template:Infobox website, as these articles do, instead of the current generic infobox. One reason not to make the switch is that the Innovations Exchange is a subdomain of ahrq.gov whereas the articles using that template are generally their own domains. Any thoughts? -- Econterms (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]