Article reads like advert[edit]

Flagged the article as currently written as needing some clean-up. It looks and reads like it was cut and pasted from the organization's promotional material. For example, in the first paragraph it mentions "ASHP strives to ensure high-quality professional pharmacy practice in hospitals and health systems so that pharmacists can make the best and safest use of medications for their patients." But the latter part of that sentence is somewhat redundant in the sense that ALL pharmaceutical organizations and companies would make the same claim of wanting the "best and safest use of medications" (who wouldn't?). Another brief example is where the article mentions "Health-system Pharmacy 2015 ... is ASHP’s landmark initiative," without a independently cited justification why it should be labelled "landmark". The style format of the article also is slightly off, as if the text was done in another application and pasted here, including some extraneous lines and spaces. And finally note that (from what I can tell) all the external links in the article are directly operated by the ASHSP. It would be useful to include a secondary reference that is independent of the article's subject to verify information.

So basically the article could use a clean up to remove "weasel words", standardize the text formatting and to add some external references that are not directly owned by the ASHSP. Dugwiki 22:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree! I copyedited it as best I could without killing almost the whole thing...I love that when you translate half of this into english, it says "we want more patients, we want more pharmacists" and the other part said "we hope it gets better in the next nine or ten years, we decided." It's not bad now.If any of this is verifiable they are certainly notable enough to have a page. It just needs sources now, that they don't "publish". Resonanteye

As they are the only US organisation in the field, it may be hard to find something on the subject that they don't publish, but there should be multiple sources referring to the publication which are standard references. I'll take a try at it.. But there's no reason for the tag. DGG 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


article which sent me here rendered them as "AHFS", and one of ASHP's publications seems to use that as well. what IS it? specific division? old name? alternate name?

and what's it stand for?!

neither mentioned anywhere in article! (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I is there known side effects to capsule 2604:2D80:A314:D000:9472:DA0F:B416:3F92 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]