Flocabulary has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the recognition section, the links for the articles referenced lead to the flocabulary site and not the actual articles, so they aren't really sources of merit. Additionally, I believe MySpace links are not allowed under {{WP:MYSPACE]]. I'll help in editing this article to keep it from WP:AFD. Christopher Jost 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see this policy which specifically states that links to social networking sites are to be avoided. Since you mention you link to them from your own site, they are also redundant. I am trying to address the concerns of the other editors who also thought the article was a bit too spammy and self-promoting from the Articles for Deletion page. If you think the paragraph rearrangement back to stet is right, fine - that's a stylistic issue. The SPAM is editorial, however. I raised the concern, and I'm trying to help fix it. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight (although I recognize that you do). Christopher Jost 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This article reads like a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.58 ( talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as having numerous issues that are in need of addressing. Personally, I still feel as though this article is written so much like an advertisement, that it would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. However, since my speedy deletion request was denied, and a previous AfD discussion resulted in a Keep decision, I have decided to forgo a new AfD for now, in the hopes that the article can simply be improved. As I have time, I will try to make some changes myself, and I'd appreciate any input others have on how to improve the article, particularly on how to make it more NPOV. Ithizar ( talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
I made a few small copyedit changes. Let me know if there is disagreement on any of them.
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Looks good! | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
This was done very well. I think the coverage and the all-angles perspective is excellent. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Once again, done very well. A good job was done to cite the always controversial controversies section, and I think the article properly conveys all perspectives fairly. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
I would have liked to see a template (like
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall, this was a well written and well sourced article. As you can see, most of my remarks are stylistic in nature, so with just a few corrections, I would promote this to GA. I am going to place the nomination on hold in the mean time. Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Just an FYI: this is may first GA review, so any feedback that could help me improve my reviewing in the future would be much appreciated. Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Several details in this article are outdated. Suggestions for updates and corrections:
1. HMH error
In September 2007, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt released a line of Flocabulary products called 'Word Up' for teaching standardized test vocabulary.
Done CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
2. Breadth of Content
a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…
Done CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…
3. Nature of Product
Flocabulary is a publishing company that produces educational hip hop music and accompanying books for use in the classroom.
Not done References provided look to be primary sources, whereas we really need independent sources to verify this is a substantial amount of the organization's operations, and not just their latest push. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
4. Old Logo
Belkat ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Description of Services
Flocabulary products bundle teacher lesson plans, student workbooks, and accompanying recorded music.
6. User Statistics
Over 300,000 students across more than 12,000 schools have used Flocabulary products in the classroom.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
7. User Statistics - Second Reference
Flocabulary products have been used by 300,000 students in 12,000 schools across 100 school districts.
Done Appears to be a duplicate of request 6? CorporateM ( Talk) 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Recent Media Coverage Available
Not done Forbes "contributors" can't be used and some of this is sort of random commentary I don't think is needed. The best sources for a Reception section are professional, in-depth reviews. I did do a lot of trimming both of critical and positive material. A bot should come by shortly to fix the broken references. I did make all the other edits however. CorporateM ( Talk) 05:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
References
Flocabulary has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the recognition section, the links for the articles referenced lead to the flocabulary site and not the actual articles, so they aren't really sources of merit. Additionally, I believe MySpace links are not allowed under {{WP:MYSPACE]]. I'll help in editing this article to keep it from WP:AFD. Christopher Jost 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see this policy which specifically states that links to social networking sites are to be avoided. Since you mention you link to them from your own site, they are also redundant. I am trying to address the concerns of the other editors who also thought the article was a bit too spammy and self-promoting from the Articles for Deletion page. If you think the paragraph rearrangement back to stet is right, fine - that's a stylistic issue. The SPAM is editorial, however. I raised the concern, and I'm trying to help fix it. Seriously, I don't have a dog in this fight (although I recognize that you do). Christopher Jost 13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This article reads like a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.58 ( talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged this article as having numerous issues that are in need of addressing. Personally, I still feel as though this article is written so much like an advertisement, that it would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. However, since my speedy deletion request was denied, and a previous AfD discussion resulted in a Keep decision, I have decided to forgo a new AfD for now, in the hopes that the article can simply be improved. As I have time, I will try to make some changes myself, and I'd appreciate any input others have on how to improve the article, particularly on how to make it more NPOV. Ithizar ( talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 23:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
I made a few small copyedit changes. Let me know if there is disagreement on any of them.
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Looks good! | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
This was done very well. I think the coverage and the all-angles perspective is excellent. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Once again, done very well. A good job was done to cite the always controversial controversies section, and I think the article properly conveys all perspectives fairly. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
I would have liked to see a template (like
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
Overall, this was a well written and well sourced article. As you can see, most of my remarks are stylistic in nature, so with just a few corrections, I would promote this to GA. I am going to place the nomination on hold in the mean time. Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Just an FYI: this is may first GA review, so any feedback that could help me improve my reviewing in the future would be much appreciated. Daniel J Simanek ( talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Several details in this article are outdated. Suggestions for updates and corrections:
1. HMH error
In September 2007, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt released a line of Flocabulary products called 'Word Up' for teaching standardized test vocabulary.
Done CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
2. Breadth of Content
a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…
Done CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…
3. Nature of Product
Flocabulary is a publishing company that produces educational hip hop music and accompanying books for use in the classroom.
Not done References provided look to be primary sources, whereas we really need independent sources to verify this is a substantial amount of the organization's operations, and not just their latest push. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
4. Old Logo
Belkat ( talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
5. Description of Services
Flocabulary products bundle teacher lesson plans, student workbooks, and accompanying recorded music.
6. User Statistics
Over 300,000 students across more than 12,000 schools have used Flocabulary products in the classroom.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
7. User Statistics - Second Reference
Flocabulary products have been used by 300,000 students in 12,000 schools across 100 school districts.
Done Appears to be a duplicate of request 6? CorporateM ( Talk) 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Recent Media Coverage Available
Not done Forbes "contributors" can't be used and some of this is sort of random commentary I don't think is needed. The best sources for a Reception section are professional, in-depth reviews. I did do a lot of trimming both of critical and positive material. A bot should come by shortly to fix the broken references. I did make all the other edits however. CorporateM ( Talk) 05:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
References