Talk:Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100629021035/http://www.cdrewu.edu:80/research/drew_cares to http://www.cdrewu.edu/research/drew_cares
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229112512/http://www.oasisclinicla.org:80/ to http://www.oasisclinicla.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703173026/http://wascsenior.org/node/235 to http://www.wascsenior.org/node/235
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This institution may be aimed primarily at medical education for blacks and other U.S. minority groups, but it fails to meet the historic (and U.S. Department of Education definition, which says such an institution was founded pre-1964 (before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964).  2600:1004:B16D:9933:B138:36D1:15F1:5A42 (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  HBCU? 

message: Hello,
I am working to update the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU) wiki page, as it has not received any significant updates since 2014. I work for CDU and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make edits on my behalf. Changes this go around will (hopefully) include major enhancements to the main text, complete with sources - though the below drafts that I've provided omit the citations already included by Wikipedia. 
I have edited the entire article, but was later advised that it would be best to include my edit requests by-the-section versus uploading the entire draft via my sandbox. If I am doing this incorrectly, please notify me and I will work to remedy it immediately. My requests are below my signature. Thank you, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits 

message: Your edit request was declined because the request was (A) not formatted correctly and (B) contained text which was insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. 
* With regards to formatting:
# The citation note numbers are not placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text the source is referencing. (See WP:INTEGRITY.)
# The citation style predominantly used by the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.)
* With regards to WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE:
# Submitted text ought to be written using an editor's own words and phrasing.
In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two which identify the issues in formatting. The first example shows how the formatting of the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be formatted in the future. 
Please revise the page to the below text, which gives a fuller picture of the Sun and the Moon: 
*"The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin."
 
 
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science article. Additionally, the references have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref notes, the WikiFormatted text would resemble the following:
Please add the following sentence to the first paragraph of the article's "Sun and Moon" section:
*The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.
Please add the following sentence to the first paragraph of the article's "Sun and Moon" section:
*The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 degrees Kelvin.[3]
References
----
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. , Scientific American, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, the reference notes are placed in the exact location where the text which they reference resides. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. 
Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  Spintendo  23:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 10-JAN-2019

message: Hello,
Many thanks to Spintendo for detailing what I needed to do to implement changes on the CDU Wiki page. As previously mentioned, I work for the University and have a conflict of interest so I ask others to look and make edits on my behalf. These changes include major enhancements to the main text, complete with sources - as a precaution, I have also included existing Wikipedia sources where appropriate.
I'd like to reiterate that my employer tasked me to update and "fill in missing holes" within the article, and as such, no plagiarism was intended during drafting. If I have updated the text incorrectly or paraphrased too closely, please notify me and I will work to remedy it immediately. My requests are below my signature. Thank you, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your sourcing of these claims with ref tags, which help to place which claim goes with which reference. The references at this time include many which are university-supplied, and which cover claims that are already available elsewhere (the University's own website as well as this page in particular). Due to the current standing version of the article's heavy use of University-supplied sources it would be best if the suggested additions to that standing version included mostly secondary sources, which are generally the preferred sources for articles in Wikipedia. Additionally, sections within your request still do not contain ref tags (the Presidents section and the section on CDU’s current research enterprise clusters) or have ref tags whose placement is dubious (i.e., one ref tag placed at the end of a long paragraph which contains many claims, such as in the paragraph which begins ). These should be fixed as well. Thank you for your help with this! Regards,  Spintendo  13:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Edit Request (2/7/2019) **updated references 2/14**

message: * 42% of the provided sources have links which are not active. Please provide the full URLs to the articles mentioned.
Regards,  Spintendo  20:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your sourcing of these claims with ref tags, which help to place which claim goes with which reference. The references at this time include many which are university-supplied, and which cover claims that are already available elsewhere (the University's own website as well as this page in particular). Due to the current standing version of the article's heavy use of University-supplied sources it would be best if the suggested additions to that standing version included mostly secondary sources, which are generally the preferred sources for articles in Wikipedia. Additionally, sections within your request still do not contain ref tags (the Presidents section and the section on CDU’s current research enterprise clusters) or have ref tags whose placement is dubious (i.e., one ref tag placed at the end of a long paragraph which contains many claims, such as in the paragraph which begins ). These should be fixed as well. Thank you for your help with this! Regards,  Spintendo  13:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 11-FEB-2019

message: Good afternoon. I have updated the references detailed in the "Unreferenced Section" drop down detailed by . In addition to that, I have rewritten a few of the passages to be as neutral as possible.
Spintendo, you noted in our conversation on your talk page that this article makes mention of a program that has been defunct for 20 years - I might have edited it out without realizing in this most recent round, but I couldn't see what you were talking about. If you catch it in this review, could you please highlight it so that I can update accordingly? Thanks. Chantelcartercdu (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The passage is the following:In May 1978, a proposed agreement between the Charles R. Drew Postgraduate Medical School and the UCLA School of Medicine to jointly establish an undergraduate medical program at Drew was formally approved. Students complete their first two years at UCLA and their third and fourth years, the clinical years, at CDU. The original agreement was signed to last for twenty years and is renewable.The text states that this agreement is renewable, but does not state whether it was renewed, leaving the reader to conclude that it must have elapsed in 1998. Also, the passages that are in blue cannot be inserted into the text as is. Their initial proposal was instituted on the idea that the surrounding text would be implemented along with it. As this is not to be the case, there is no direction for where these passages are to be placed. A newer request needs to be offered explaining where these sections of approvable text are to be inserted. Regards,  Spintendo  12:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just following up to make sure you got my last message. When ready to proceed, be sure to open a new request under a level 2 heading using a new  template to alert editors that you're ready to proceed. Thank you!  Spintendo  23:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made 3/5 

message: Good afternoon, please implement the following edits into our existing article - I have updated references where necessary. I did receive a piece of feedback that one of my references was not in the proper CS1 style, but could not identify which - if that is still the case for this review round, kindly highlight it so that I may update it as soon as possible.  Thanks very much. Best, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request (August 6) 

message: #  The president list was implemented.
#  The information concerning MEDEX and the postgraduate medical school was previously declined because of issues with its phrasing and dates. My concerns over phrasings refer to the following: . My concerns over the dates were noted then as:  
#  The information concerning residency training was previously declined because of issues with its phrasing and WP:INTEGRITY. My concerns over the phrasings include the following:  which is longwinded; and the phrase  does not delineate the nature of that support. My concerns over integrity involve the source for the first sentence, which only references the names of the board chairman and supervisor (i.e., ). This statement, having the ref tag placed after it, indicates only two things: (a) the names of the board chairman and supervisor, and (b) that the Board of Supervisors acted on their motion. That motion was for:  This language does not indicate that the $800K was provided at that time for these two residency programs. Please clarify the importance of this motion in terms of delivering the monies to the University, or whether it was merely a precursor motion by the Board.
#  The information regarding the MLK hospital is declined because the proposed text omits details of importance from the proposed sources. These details include the nature of the shutdown, which according to the source, was due to  
#  The information regarding the accreditation bodies was previously not added because this information, which consists mostly of accreditation bodies, decisions, and dates, was not placed in a table format. Also, the accreditation bodies were not Wikilinked. A preferable alternative for how to display this information is shown below:
 
Date	Accreditation body                                	Status
2009	Western Association of Schools and Colleges       	Approval
2011	National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission	Granted
2011	Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education        	Granted
Regards,  Spintendo  01:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 6-AUG-2019

message: I apologize in advance for piecemealing future edit requests, but I want to ensure that I have a full understanding of how to pursue the next round. With that said, my intention in writing the below response is not to be argumentative, but to offer some additional perspective from my--the author's--standpoint, as well as my employer's. 
The information re: residency training may be "longwinded," but I would contend that it is certainly information that is relevant to our article, since residency training did leave the entire community for over 11 years following the closure of the neighboring hospital.  That’s highly significant when you take into account there were no doctors training in a chronically medically under-resourced area populated by nearly two million people. To be on the safe side, I have amended the line in the above edit request to omit the impact of the programs' return on the surrounding  community, but I'd like to ask that it be reconsidered given the additional context.
My intentions in updating this article, particularly the affiliation with MLK hospital, is certainly not to omit information or be misleading. However, I do believe it’s important that the update reflect how the relationship affected CDU as an institution, versus focusing on the chaos that happened across the street, which was previously the case. With that said, I'd respectfully contend that the information regarding the hospital's "errors involved in multiple deaths" is more appropriate to be listed in the Martin Luther King Jr. Outpatient Center article, or even the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital's. Simply put, it's their story to tell - not ours. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this point in particular, because I’m very interested in resolving this in a manner that will satisfy both Wiki’s editorial/verifiability standards as well as my employer’s. Above all else, we're interested in figuring out what it takes to have the following line implemented: Since the opening in 2015 of the replacement medical center, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, CDU has maintained a close relationship with the facility due to geographical proximity but no longer holds a formal affiliation with the hospital.
Ultimately, we'd like to be on par with other university articles on this platform (such as Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, and Morehouse School of Medicine) that are able to share their history and impact on their respective communities, programs, facts (including the "ups and downs") in a compelling and informative way, but we seem to be limited to only table charts and dry, occasionally outdated data — for instance, the entire sentence and supporting citation about us being accredited in June 2018 for ten years was completely removed from our public-facing article for some reason, and it was not even an edit that was made or requested by me.   
My question to you then is, citation errors aside, how do you suggest we present our information to be able to communicate the latest trajectory of our institution in a compelling manner? Am I taking the incorrect approach by trying to "tell a story"? Thank you for your help and guidance in advance. Best, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the editor 

message: Allow me to say first that I appreciate wholeheartedly your approach to these edit requests, which up to and including now, has been and continues to be, professional and respectful in circumstances which can frankly seem difficult and confusing for COI editors, given the nature of the edit request review process. Thus, your approach is to be commended. Please know that your questions and concerns will always be warmly received by myself and my colleagues, as we recognize you as a vital partner in implementing changes which benefit the article. With respect to your individual requests presented today, let me take them in order.
# The information about MEDEX @ Drew as presented is acceptable in whole except for this phrase:  In Wikipedia, it's important for phrases to respect MOS:RELTIME, which is to say that any phrase which speaks of "today" will theoretically be accurate for one day only (i.e., , as mentioned in the proposed text) since "this day", like all days, lasts only 24 hours. To state that the relationship lasts to "this day" and therefore may be inaccurate tomorrow is incompatible with the sort of language which Wikipedia tries to use which is described in MOS:RELTIME. There is also the grammatical errors which exists in that statement, which I presume was meant to state "The relationship between the two institutions which has continued to this day is still ongoing..." but fixing this error still does not fix the RELTIME issue, so this sentence needs to be completely reworded.
#  The references used for this claim are problematic. The Rothman reference was written by what I'm assuming is an employee of the Los Angeles County Health Agency in a newsletter. That the information appears in a newsletter is not really the issue (although there are other issues with using newsletters in general). The main problem is that the newsletter was published on March 28, 2018, which is almost 2 months before the residents began their programs in July 2018. Sources cannot be used as references for things which they do not witness, which is why sources like newsletters are not the best ones to use — as in this case Dr. Rothman is essentially forecasting her newsletter submission. The other source for this claim was published in 2008, a full 10 years before the events described in the claim occur. This second source is ostensibly used to confirm that the residency program ended in 2007, but the entire claim as a whole is using these two disparate sources to arrive at one conclusion, which cannot be done according to WP:SYNTH.
#  The nature of this "close relationship" needs to be fleshed out because there will be readers who will not know what type of close relationship these facilities used to have, nor will there be those who understand what a "formal affiliation" normally entails between two facilities when reading that part of the text. If the nature of this closeness is purely geographical, then it makes sense to describe the MLK Jr. facility and CDU only as being geographicaly close rather than describing them as "maintaining a close relationship due to geographical proximity". I can see how describing the two facilities in the latter sense as opposed to the former does have a compelling narrative quality to it. In essense, a description of having a "close relationship" anthropomorphizes the two facilities as being somewhat like a close friendship as two friends might have. But this narrative is not one that is sustainable on Wikipedia, and good-faith attempts at making the text compelling need to be limited to using explanatory prose to tell readers why something is important.
I hope this helps to revise the statements above so that their entire paragraphs may be added to the article. I have added the table you proposed to the Accreditation section since it is more relevant there. If you have any other concerns or questions please don't hesitate to ask. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 13-AUG-2019

message: I have updated the phrasing re: our history with UCLA below. Please also note that your “concerns over the dates” are in regard to our MD program with UCLA, not the MEDEX/Physician Assistant program. With these clarifications in mind, please see below for the new proposed text, to be inserted into the “History” section:
The Physician Assistant profession began in California as MEDEX at the Charles R. Drew Postgraduate Medical School (now "CDU") in 1971. CDU MEDEX students received their instruction from physician faculty at UCLA until March 1973, when they moved to what was then known as the Martin Luther King, Jr. General Hospital in Watts. Following a brief closure of the program beginning in 2011, the physician assistant program returned to CDU in August 2016.  
In May 1978, a proposed agreement between CDU and the UCLA School of Medicine to jointly establish an undergraduate medical program at Drew was formally approved by the California Board of Regents, and the program graduated its first class of fifteen students in 1985. The relationship between the two institutions is still ongoing - students complete their first two years at UCLA and their third and fourth years, the clinical years, at CDU.
---
Re: residency training, I’d like to respectfully contest your assessment of the validity of the Dr. Rothman source. Though the article was published on March 28, 2018, the event she discussed was Match Day 2018, which took place on March 18 – she was not forecasting anything in that regard, only reporting. Within the article she discussed the effects that the closure of the MLK Hospital 11 years prior had on CDU’s ability to train physicians – she was not forecasting anything then, either. With that said, I have sought to be more mindful with the placement of my citations to better and more accurately support my claims. Please see below, and add a level three heading under the History section titled “Return of Residency Training”:
In September 2017, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted to allocate $800,000 to CDU to fund two new residency training programs in Family Medicine and Psychiatry. The funds were made available through a Pre-Medical School Affiliation Agreement signed between L.A. County and CDU in October 2017. A Medical School Affiliation Agreement between L.A. County Health Agency and CDU currently provides the programs with support of up to $14.6 million until 2023. Residents began their programs in July 2018, marking the return of residency training to the University for the first time since the closure of the former King-Drew Medical Center in 2007.
---
Please see below for my proposed updates for the 'Affiliation with Martin Luther King Hospital' section. Keeping your feedback from a few rounds ago in mind about maintaining details of importance regarding the closure, I have done my best to rewrite the section to be as informative and objective as possible in recalling the history of the two institutions' affiliation and subsequent disaffiliation. However, I stand firm on the belief that there are certain facts about the closure that would be more appropriately suited for the Martin Luther King Jr. Outpatient Center's article, or even the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital's. My intention in updating this section is to better communicate to readers how the relationship affected CDU as an institution, versus focusing on the chaos that happened across the street. I think that's a fair angle, seeing as how the University was in no way responsible for anyone's death. That responsibility lies with the negligence of the former hospital and its then-employees. I hope you can understand my perspective.
Both Martin Luther King Jr Hospital and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science sprang from the same social inequities that sparked the Watts Riot in 1965: a lack of accessible health care in South Los Angeles. Originally slated to be named the Los Angeles Southeast County Southeast General Hospital, it became the Martin Luther King Jr. Hospital following the civil rights leader's assassination in 1968.  By a unanimous vote of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the hospital was renamed the “Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center” in May 1982, in recognition of the role the medical school played in training the hospital’s physicians.
The relationship continued for the next two decades. However, the university and associated public hospital fell into serious trouble at the outset of the 21st century.Tracy Weber et al., The Troubles at King/Drew (5 part series), The Los Angeles Times, December 2004, Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. The hospital itself was forced into a radical restructuring plan in 2006Tiffany Hsu, University official stresses campus isn't King-Harbor, Los Angeles Times, June 22, 2007., which caused the hospital to sever its ties to CDU and terminate support to 248 medical residents.Susannah Rosenblatt, Medical school to sue L.A. County, Los Angeles Times, March 7, 2007. In October 2006, management of the hospital was transferred to another county hospital, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, and King/Drew became Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital. Also in October 2006, the national Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education informed CDU officials that it planned to revoke the university's accreditation because of the hospital's upcoming loss of Medicare money; as a result the university voluntarily withdrew its accreditation.  
With the closing of the physician-training programs, the assumption of hospital management by Harbor-UCLA and  the formal change of the hospital’s name, the break between Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital and Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science was complete. On March 6, 2007, officials from CDU announced that they would sue Los Angeles County for $125 million for breach of contract, claiming that the restructuring of the hospital gutted the University.
In June 2007, the school began an 18-month rebranding effort aimed at preventing people from associating the school with the continuing ordeals of King-Harbor. In September 2009, their 2007 lawsuit was settled with an agreement under which the county would rent space to the university on favorable terms and the county and university would work together toward the reopening of MLK Hospital. 
In 2015, a new and private nonprofit inpatient facility, Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, was opened on the county-owned site of the King-Harbor Hospital. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science has no teaching or operational ties to the new hospital.
Happy Friday. Please see below above for my latest edit request. Thanks, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (October 25) 

message: #  The first sentence calls this program MEDEX. The second sentence clarifies that the program is now called CDU. The third sentence then refers to the students as CDU MEDEX students. Are these the students that went to the program when it was called MEDEX or when it was called CDU? The prose is referring to them using both old and new terms. Please clarify.
#  The Rothman source states the following (I've bolded the problematic text):  Your proposed text words it as "the return of residency training was marked for the first time since 2007." My question asks marked by whom? It doesnt matter whether the Match Day event took place on March 18 or March 28 — the date for the event she was mentioning "the return of residency training" didn't take place until July - Rothman mentions that herself when she states "The programs will start in July". The Rothman source cannot be used for a claim that the university "marked" the return of students 4 months before the program officially began. Rothman should have worded it more like this: "In four months time, those classes will begin — and when they do, it will mark the return of residents for the first time since 2011." That is how she should have worded it, and its for that reason that it can't be stated using Wikipedia's voice, because when Rothman said that, it hadn't happened yet. Sources can only report on what they see. If I make a visit to the site of a new store which is being built in March, and I remark to reporters that "the store will open in 4 months", the reporters ought not use me as the source for the store as opening in July — especially if, for example, there had been delays in the opening and the store hadn't really opened until September. Using my remarks to a reporter as the source for the store opening would be folly for any reporter who got the date wrong, and they would know that a person making a remark about a future event is not a good source to use about the event happening — even if that event happened exactly as the person forcasted it would. 
# There are a few problems with the third section, I'll give you 6 for now:  
Regards,  Spintendo  03:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 25-OCT-2019

message: Good afternoon, and Happy New Year. Please see below for my proposed edits to the CDU article. Looking forward to receiving your feedback and hoping that we can get these edits implemented... Best, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your question — I apologize for the delay in answering it. Wikipedia prefers using reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources for its content. In this instance, California Healthline is a publication owned by Kaiser, which due to its proximity to the healthcare industry, would not place it as an independent publication. HCD Magazine appears to be owned by Emerald X, an owner and operator of business-to-business tradeshows, which brings into question its reliability. Regards,  Spintendo  10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Request (1/23/2020) 

message: * I've placed inline templates where information is needed to be clarified.
* The source marked as original research should not be used. It is not entirely clear which program was the first self-sustained program, as Stanford graduated students in 73 and it's not clear when those students enrolled (in other words, it's not clear that their program took only one year to complete). 
* The phrase discussing the Watts riots as being "sparked" by inadequate access to health care needs to be omitted or re-worded, as that may have been a proximate cause (inequity), but not a direct cause. 
* The LA and NY Times sources are excellent, but the other sources used such as California Healthline and HCD Magazine need to be replaced by better sources. Section headers would work here as well, labeling the information under a specific topic.
Regards,  Spintendo  03:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your question — I apologize for the delay in answering it. Wikipedia prefers using reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources for its content. In this instance, California Healthline is a publication owned by Kaiser, which due to its proximity to the healthcare industry, would not place it as an independent publication. HCD Magazine appears to be owned by Emerald X, an owner and operator of business-to-business tradeshows, which brings into question its reliability. Regards,  Spintendo  10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 27-JAN-2020

message: Thanks as always for your feedback. May I ask what disqualifies sources such as California Healthline and HCD Magazine from being considered credible? I'd like to keep this in mind for the next round as I look for new ones. Thanks, Chantelcartercdu (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your question — I apologize for the delay in answering it. Wikipedia prefers using reliable, independent, WP:SECONDARY sources for its content. In this instance, California Healthline is a publication owned by Kaiser, which due to its proximity to the healthcare industry, would not place it as an independent publication. HCD Magazine appears to be owned by Emerald X, an owner and operator of business-to-business tradeshows, which brings into question its reliability. Regards,  Spintendo  10:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 3-FEB-2020

message: Hello, please see below for my latest submission for CDU's wikipedia page. Looking forward to receiving feedback. Thanks. Chantelcartercdu (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see too many issues with the text as it is, it looks very good (reference wise and grammar, etc.). The only issue I see is that there is some confusion in the difference between Drew and MLK. I placed those comments in the middle of the proposal because I wanted to understate them as questions that I had, as a reader, while reading the text up to that point in the article. Please feel free to read them. Perhaps when this text is integrated into the article, it will become more clear, but maybe perhaps a better description of how and why these two facilities merged (I want to say they merged, but actually I'm not even sure that's what they did, or if they just changed names). Please take a look at the feedback I wrote, and then feel free to respond with any ideas you have on it. I look forward to hearing them. To re-iterate, the only issues I have are with the section on Drew and MLK (the History and Affiliation section). The loss of accreditation section is much more clearer, although because it deals with these two facilities that I had the questions about, it's still fuzzy. Be sure to change the template's answer parameter from ans=y to ans=n when ready with your reply. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  09:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to follow up here, I'm going to go ahead and implement the requested changes for all the sections where the text was not an issue (which amounts to  of the entire request). The only areas where changes will be held back will be from the area I mentioned above, where I still had questions about the relationship between the one facility and the other. Still awaiting feedback from those questions. Again, thank you for your help! Regards,  Spintendo  13:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit request (February 25) 

message: In 2015, a new and private nonprofit inpatient facility, Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, was opened on the county-owned site of the King-Harbor Hospital. Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science has no teaching or operational ties to the new hospital.
:I don't see too many issues with the text as it is, it looks very good (reference wise and grammar, etc.). The only issue I see is that there is some confusion in the difference between Drew and MLK. I placed those comments in the middle of the proposal because I wanted to understate them as questions that I had, as a reader, while reading the text up to that point in the article. Please feel free to read them. Perhaps when this text is integrated into the article, it will become more clear, but maybe perhaps a better description of how and why these two facilities merged (I want to say they merged, but actually I'm not even sure that's what they did, or if they just changed names). Please take a look at the feedback I wrote, and then feel free to respond with any ideas you have on it. I look forward to hearing them. To re-iterate, the only issues I have are with the section on Drew and MLK (the History and Affiliation section). The loss of accreditation section is much more clearer, although because it deals with these two facilities that I had the questions about, it's still fuzzy. Be sure to change the template's answer parameter from ans=y to ans=n when ready with your reply. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  09:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to follow up here, I'm going to go ahead and implement the requested changes for all the sections where the text was not an issue (which amounts to  of the entire request). The only areas where changes will be held back will be from the area I mentioned above, where I still had questions about the relationship between the one facility and the other. Still awaiting feedback from those questions. Again, thank you for your help! Regards,  Spintendo  13:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening of Martin Luther King Community Hospital