 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Proposing to delete the massive digression into homeowners insurance as a violation of Wikipedia policy
I feel awful about removing what I'll frankly admit is well-written prose, but the problem is that the material is clearly way off-topic and it's a violation of WP:NOT. That content may be appropriate for an article on homeowners insurance in the United States or for a textbook on insurance at Wikibooks, but it's grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedic article providing a broad overview of the American insurance industry. Any objections before I take out the trash? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Five months have elapsed, I am going ahead. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion of Geico as an insurance group was recently updated. Although probably true there are 9 subsidiaries by which it does business, there's no citation and I had to pull the Berekshire 10K to check, and even that doesn't say the agency holds the subsidiary insurers. After re-reading the section, I question its helpfulness in explaining how an insurance group works and the use of GEICO as an example could seem promotional. The advantages of GEICO operating as a group aren't spelled out, and it could use info (not necessarily GEICO) re: (a) the use of intercompany pooling and reinsurance, and (b) the role and licensure of non-insurance entities within the group. While the additional comment about policyholders being ignorant of the identity of their carrier is helpful, perhaps if framed around the branding and trademarks it would be a bit more encyclopaedic. I'm not here just to criticise and don't think this is a text deletion warning, but it needs improvement beyond wordsmithing (and I'm not ready to do it yet). Oblivy ( talk) 05:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Proposing to delete the massive digression into homeowners insurance as a violation of Wikipedia policy
I feel awful about removing what I'll frankly admit is well-written prose, but the problem is that the material is clearly way off-topic and it's a violation of WP:NOT. That content may be appropriate for an article on homeowners insurance in the United States or for a textbook on insurance at Wikibooks, but it's grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedic article providing a broad overview of the American insurance industry. Any objections before I take out the trash? -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Five months have elapsed, I am going ahead. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 22:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion of Geico as an insurance group was recently updated. Although probably true there are 9 subsidiaries by which it does business, there's no citation and I had to pull the Berekshire 10K to check, and even that doesn't say the agency holds the subsidiary insurers. After re-reading the section, I question its helpfulness in explaining how an insurance group works and the use of GEICO as an example could seem promotional. The advantages of GEICO operating as a group aren't spelled out, and it could use info (not necessarily GEICO) re: (a) the use of intercompany pooling and reinsurance, and (b) the role and licensure of non-insurance entities within the group. While the additional comment about policyholders being ignorant of the identity of their carrier is helpful, perhaps if framed around the branding and trademarks it would be a bit more encyclopaedic. I'm not here just to criticise and don't think this is a text deletion warning, but it needs improvement beyond wordsmithing (and I'm not ready to do it yet). Oblivy ( talk) 05:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)