Talk:Flocabulary

Comments

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)

Thanks for helping! However, the one thing that I wouldn't have done is remove the MySpace links. Both are official pages linked from the Flocabulary homepage, and neither is used as a source. Many other band/music articles have links to MySpaces (for example, The Flaming Lips#External links). But still, thanks a lot for helping me improve the article! --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

SPAM

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)

Okay, okay. Fair enough. I thought that it was justified because other musician articles have MySpace links, but if you really think that it will significantly improve the article, fine. --Brandt Luke Zorn 14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if all your friends jumped off a bridge .... Seriously, glad to help. FWIW: I cleaned up the lips page so I'm not picking on you at all. Christopher Jost 00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, I never thought you were picking on me. If I sounded hostile, it was unintended. Seriously, thanks for all the help. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

VOICE

This article reads like a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.222.37.58 (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality, Style and Other Issues

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)

I had the same thoughts myself, so thanks for tagging this. I'd suggest first removing much of the self-promotion, and then focusing on sourcing the remaining statements. As it is now, it reads like an advertisement. I'll make a few changes and try to get the ball rolling. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flocabulary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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.	Would 'Word Up!' be considered a title or a work of some kind? If so, it should be styled as such. Also, the Flocabulary website refers to it as 'The Word Up Project.' Is there another source out there that can clarify the name? I think Word Up! is its stylized name, changed it to "Word Up". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I made a few small copyedit changes. Let me know if there is disagreement on any of them. There are a few run-ons in places. Some I fixed, others I wasn't sure what to do with. An example would be the sentence in the 'Criticism and controversy' section that starts with, "In particular, the lyrics to the song ..." I fixed the sentence you referred to, any others? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Also watch that end-of-sentence punctuation appears before the quotation marks, not after. I corrected a few of these, but I may have missed some. This doesn't apply to song titles or short phrases such as "context or accuracy", but otherwise the fixes are accurate. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I see there is citation for all of the material in the lead later in the document, but it should really all be cited in the lead as well (WP:LEADCITE). There are now citations in the lead. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC) 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).	I have read through the sources and, as with the lead, it looks like all information is properly verified by a source somewhere. However, the citations seem sparse, as in it is not always clear which citations cover which claims. The first paragraph in the History section is one particular example. This should be fixed now, if you have any more sourcing concerns let me know. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Much better! Daniel J Simanek (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
	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 {{Non-free use rationale logo}}) in use for the fair use rational on the image page, but what is there is passable. Added the template anyway! --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
	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) Changes have been made. I will go a head and promote to GA. Good work! Daniel Simanek (talk) 14:04, 21 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)

Corrections & Clarifications

Several details in this article are outdated. Suggestions for updates and corrections:

1. HMH error

• Error: The following sentence is incorrect:

  In September 2007, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt released a line of Flocabulary products called 'Word Up' for teaching standardized test vocabulary.

• Correction: HMH did not release the line; Flocabulary did. HMH then distributed Word Up in 10 states. This is clear when reading through the article already cited: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20100401/flocabularys-comeback.html This should also be corrected in the infobox where “Distribution” is listed as “Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.” The distribution should either be “Flocabulary” or not be included.

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit has not been corrected in the infobox. Related to the error corrected in October 2014, HMH is not the distributor for Flocabulary. The “distribution” section of the infobox should read either “Flocabulary” or should be removed. Mcro16 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit is not yet completed though it is marked as done. Please see edit request above. Mcro16 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Soricesofast (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

2. Breadth of Content

• Error: The infobox lists “Nonfiction topics” as “vocabulary, United States history.”

• Correction: It should read: “vocabulary, English language arts, mathematics, social studies, science and current events.” Likewise, the first paragraph reads:

  a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…

• Should read: “...a nontraditional approach to teaching academic subjects for grades K through 12”

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit was not carried through to paragraph one of the page. Related to the correction completed in the infobox in October 2014 where the list in “Nonfiction topics” was expanded, the first paragraph’s description of Flocabulary does not offer a complete list of subject areas offered in the company’s library. The first paragraph reads:

a nontraditional approach to teaching vocabulary and United States history…

 Done I didn't list all of them in the summary though, just used "and other subjects" CorporateM (Talk) 04:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Correction: Should read: “...a nontraditional approach to teaching academic subjects for grades K through 12" Mcro16 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

3. Nature of Product

• Error: Flocabulary has moved from book production into a digital model. The following sentence should be changed to reflect that:

  Flocabulary is a publishing company that produces educational hip hop music and accompanying books for use in the classroom.

• Correction: Should read: “Flocabulary is an online library of educational hip-hop videos.”

 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)

Updated Correction: Should read “Flocabulary is a Brooklyn-based company that creates educational hip-hop videos along with interactive activities and assessments.” Mcro16 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 04:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit is marked as done but sentence has not been edited (opening sentence, first paragraph of the page). Perhaps edit didn't save. Please see suggested edit above. Mcro16 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Didn't use your exact language. "Interactive activities" is vague. Instead used language from the linked article on Graphite, which is a major third-party education app review site run by a non-profit, Common Sense Media. Soricesofast (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

4. Old Logo

• Error: The current image is the company’s old logo, which is no longer in use.

• Correction: Should be replace with new logo, which is visible on their homepage and can be downloaded here: http://flocabulary.s3.amazonaws.com/site-static-jrev/images/Flocabulary_2013logo.png

Please go ahead and update the logo. This is generally considered a non-controversial edit that is best managed by the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Replacing the logo. Mcro16 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Belkat (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

5. Description of Services

• Error: The following wording does not accurately characterize Flocabulary’s provision of services:

  Flocabulary products bundle teacher lesson plans, student workbooks, and accompanying recorded music.

• Correction: Sentence should read “Flocabulary's website features videos, lesson plans, activities and assessments.” Mcro16 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

6. User Statistics

• Error: The user statistics currently noted in the page are out of date:

  Over 300,000 students across more than 12,000 schools have used Flocabulary products in the classroom.

• Correction: Most current source indicates that Flocabulary is used in 35,000 schools worldwide. Mcro16 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 05:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

As written in most recent edit, the sentence combines up-to-date information with outdated information. Correction: sentence should read "Flocabulary is used in 35,000 schools worldwide." Mcro16 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Fixed Soricesofast (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

7. User Statistics - Second Reference

• Error: In “History” section, the user statistics currently noted are out of date:

  Flocabulary products have been used by 300,000 students in 12,000 schools across 100 school districts.

• Correction: Most current source indicates that Flocabulary is used in 35,000 schools worldwide. Mcro16 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Appears to be a duplicate of request 6? CorporateM (Talk) 05:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not a duplicate request. This edit suggestion is regarding the second reference to user statistics on the page (please see third paragraph under History heading). If this second reference to user statistics is kept, it should read the same as item 6: "Flocabulary is used in 35,000 schools worldwide." Mcro16 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Soricesofast (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

8. Recent Media Coverage Available

Most article references listed in the the “Reception” section of the article are from 2005-2010. More current media coverage is available including the following articles:

• In July 2014, Fast Company reporter Ainsley O'Connell said “As a lesson supplement, it gets the job done—not every memory tool inspires comments like "JAMMIN" on YouTube.” The article also quotes a teacher who “introduced Flocabulary songs and lessons about world history to his sixth and eighth grade social studies classes ("Like a Persian," "Gettin’ Byzzy With It") and immediately noticed a difference. ‘It made it easier for them to be engaged [in the content], and ultimately to retain it.’"
• In November 2014, Entrepreneur.com reporter Laura Entis called a video about credit cards in Flocabulary’s financial literacy series “direct, clear and insanely catchy.”
• In February 2015, Alleywatch.com said Flocabulary “certainly makes the lessons more enjoyable to learn and much easier to remember."
• In April 2015, Forbes contributor Emma Johnson called Flocabulary “Definitely the coolest, and most creative” of the products reviewed to teach kids about money. Of Flocabulary she also said “The lyrics and videos are truly works of art that will resonate with older kids.” Mcro16 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 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)

Thanks. I've flagged item 1 (HMH Error) for edit and added an additional note under item 3 (Nature of Product), as both edits haven't yet been completed. Please also see suggested edits to items 6 and 7. Mcro16 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References