Talk:Pacific College of Health and Science

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Alternative Medicine

[edit]

If this page even deserves to be included at all, since the entire article basically reads like an advertisement for a medical quackery diploma mill, then it definitely needs the Alternative Medicine template on the page to make it clear to everyone exactly what the place is. I would add it but I'm afraid don't know how. RyokoMocha FOR I AM NYARLATHOTEP, THE CRAWLING CHAOS 04:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

This whole article seems to be lifted directly from a Pacific College catalog or website. I am a new editor. Can anyone help? None of it is blatantly untrue, but it certainly reads like an advertisement. It's so biased I don't know where to begin! --Cuttysoopreem (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review issue tags

[edit]

Hello! I have recently rewritten and updated the entire article to address the issues previously flagged: added multiple reliable sources, removed promotional language, and ensured the subject's notability is well-supported.

Could someone please review the current state of the article and consider removing the maintenance templates? Thank you!

-- Hanni Montana (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on Request to Review Issue Tags

[edit]

Hello! I'm following up on my previous request regarding the Pacific College of Health and Science article. I have substantially updated the article: - Added multiple independent, reliable sources - Removed promotional language - Improved the structure and citations to meet Wikipedia standards.

Could someone please review the current version and let me know if the maintenance templates can now be removed? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much!

Hanni Montana (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Hanni Montana! I restored the maintenance templates because there are several remaining issues.
  • Notably, the entire admissions section lacks citations. Of the citations, nearly a third are from the Pacific College of Health and Science.
  • Much of the content is still promotional. For instance, when describing the Chicago campus you stated "The new site offers upgraded learning spaces and access to a range of building amenities, like 24/7 security, concierge services, fitness centers, and on-site dining options. Its central location provides convenient access to CTA and Metra transit lines, major train stations, and bus routes." All of this language sounds as if you are selling this location. What makes a space upgraded? Who decided that it is convenient? Most importantly, how does this help a Wikipedia user understand what is core to the Pacific College of Health and Science? I would encourage you to look at articles for other, more established colleges to better understand what language and content should be used.
  • In terms of establishing notability, I think the article in Chinese Medicine and Culture does the best job of providing "significant coverage in... reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." However, the other sources tend to be from the College itself or routine coverage that lacks depth.
Lastly, most editors likely aren't reviewing talk pages for many articles. If you'd like feedback in the future, I'd recommend tagging recent editors of this article to get their attention. Vegantics (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Follow-up Request for Template Removal ==
Hello! I'm following up again on the Pacific College of Health and Science article. I've addressed the concerns raised in the previous review:
  • Improved citation coverage throughout the article, especially in the Admissions section
  • Reworded or removed promotional language for a more neutral tone
  • Added multiple independent, reliable sources to better support the college’s notability
Could someone kindly review the updated version and consider whether the maintenance templates can now be removed? I would truly appreciate any further feedback. Thank you!
Hanni Montana (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Request for Template Reassessment

[edit]

Hello again!

I would like to kindly request a reassessment of the maintenance templates on the Pacific College of Health and Science article.

Following earlier feedback, I’ve made further substantial improvements to the article, including:

  • Rewriting promotional or biased content in a more neutral tone;
  • Substantially revising the “Admissions” section to include more independent, reliable sources;
  • Adding more references from third-party sources to strengthen the article’s notability;
  • Improving the overall structure and aligning citations with Wikipedia standards.

Could someone please take a moment to review the updated version and let me know whether the current templates (e.g. promotional tone, notability) may now be removed? If any further changes are needed, I’d greatly appreciate specific suggestions.

I’m also reaching out to previous contributors who have taken the time to review and comment on this article before — Vegantics and RyokoMocha — in case you're available to kindly share your thoughts on the current version.

Thank you in advance for your time and feedback! — Hanni Montana 19:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hanni Montana, I'm not sure why I didn't see this ping. I have since reviewed the article and removed additional promotional content. While I think that it could still use some work, I think it is appropriate that the WP:PROMO template was removed. Vegantics (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final follow-up: Maintenance templates removed

[edit]

Hello again,

Following up on the previous discussions, I have now removed the remaining maintenance templates ({{Primary sources}}, {{More citations needed}}, and {{Notability}}).

These changes are based on:

  • Substantial improvements made to the article, including the removal of primary sources;
  • The addition of multiple independent, reliable secondary sources;
  • A more neutral tone and better article structure;
  • Feedback and confirmation from @Vegantics that the promotional tone issue has been resolved.

I believe the article now meets Wikipedia's standards for notability, verifiability, and neutrality.

Thank you to everyone who contributed to improving this article! If there are further suggestions, I'm happy to continue improving it.

— User:Hanni Montana Hanni Montana (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hanni Montana, the templates need to stay. The article still contains unreferenced information, relies too heavily on primary sources, and fails to show "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." You have also failed to disclose your conflict of interest. To break down the 26 sources in the article a bit further:
  • 6 are directly from the Pacific College of Health and Science
  • 5 are press releases issued by the Pacific College of Health and Science
  • 7 are primary sources from other organizations about their affiliation with the Pacific College of Health and Science
  • 2 are listicles of colleges (one doesn't even cover the college, just mentions the name, so not WP:SIGCOV)
  • 1 is an editorial interview with the college president (not independent)
  • 1 is a dead link
  • 3 are reliable, secondary sources. I did not check them for significant coverage, but I will assume that they meet the standard.
If you want to remove of find citations for the unreferenced statements, I certainly support the removal of that template. The others will be more challenging.
Vegantics (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification.
To confirm: I do have a connection to Pacific College of Health and Science and understand this constitutes a conflict of interest. I won’t make direct edits to the article moving forward and will instead propose improvements here on the Talk page, in accordance with Wikipedia’s COI guidelines.
I appreciate the detailed feedback on sources and will focus on suggesting revisions supported by independent, secondary sources.
Thank you again for your time and input. Hanni Montana (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick follow-up: I’ve since reviewed and updated the article’s references to address the concerns raised.
Several primary, promotional, and non-independent sources have been removed or replaced with more appropriate, secondary sources where available. I’m continuing to review the remaining citations and welcome any further suggestions for improvement.
Thanks again! Hanni Montana (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]