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). 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)

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Several details in this article are outdated.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

1. HMH error
 * Error: The following sentence is incorrect:


 * 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.

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

✅ 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:
 * ✅ 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:


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

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)
 * ✅ 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)


 * ✅ 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:


 * Correction: Sentence should read “Flocabulary's website features videos, lesson plans, activities and assessments.”  Mcro16 (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 05:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

6. User Statistics
 * Error: The user statistics currently noted in the page are out of date:


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


 * ✅ 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:


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

✅ 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)


 * ✅ 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)

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)