Talk:NextWorth

Draft for consideration
I've been working with NextWorth to offer an expanded article for Wikipedia's consideration that I believe is neutral, well-sourced and an improvement to Wikipedia. It's located at:
 * User:CorporateM/Nextworth

A few notes:
 * Because it's a small(ish) company, some of the sources are a bit mediocre compared to what we would expect in a Fortune 500 company page, but acceptable for their use I think
 * For the Reception section, I am partial to using the About.com source, which is more general, as oppose to iPod Observer, which is focused on a specific incident and trimming the section a bit in general. However, I erred on the side of caution in getting all the information together and seeing what disinterested editors think.
 * I'm still doing some editing on it, so pardon my dust.

I appreciate the time it takes to consider my work and look forward to any input.CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Request edit
User:John Broughton made some edits to my proposed draft (see discussion) and I think addressed the areas where I was most concerned about whether I was being neutral. I've also finished some general trimming and copy-editing and believe the proposed draft is ready for article-space. I would like to request an impartial editor move the draft to article-space per WP:COI or confirm it is acceptable to move it with a. CorporateM (Talk) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Good article
Although I'm not sure if such a small article will qualify for GA status, I've nominated to see what feedback we get. Generally the feedback I've gotten is that the community is fairly supportive of GAs for small articles, so long as there are no major gaps in the History. For a small company with only 8 years of history, I think we have our bases covered well-enough. We'll see. CorporateM (Talk) 12:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Request Edit
Per the GA reviewer's feedback regarding weasel words, I would like to suggest removing the following sentence: " As of late 2012, NextWorth was one of the best-known electronics trade-in and recycling services in the United States.[12][20]

I have edited the article in the past, but decided to use Request Edit in this case in particular, because the sources say that NextWorth AND competitor Gazelle are the two leading services:


 * "Gazelle and Nextworth are two of the biggest reselling portals"
 * "NextWorth and Gazelle. The best-known of the buy-back sites"

I am always particularly cautious when it comes to anything regarding competitors and just thought I would ask another editor to make the edit. CorporateM (Talk) 04:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The "best known" phrase is from two different sources; it's not a weasel word, in my opinion. I have moved the sentence in question to the lead section of the article; as I indicate in my edit summary, without this sentence, the article lacks a claim of notability. I have no problem with anyone tweaking the phrase "electronics trade-in and recycling services", if, for example, "online buy-back site" would be more descriptive and more modest. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. After looking at the sources more closely, I agree that this isn't a weasel word, but rather a key claim to notability. (Please note that I fixed the link to WP:AWW in your comment.) Perhaps we should consider editing the sentence to say: "NextWorth was one of the best-known and largest electronics trade-in and recycling services in the United States..." While this edit isn't crucial, it would reflect the contents of the NY Daily News source.
 * The phrase "electronics trade-in and recycling services" seems more descriptive than "online buy-back site", so I think it should remain unchanged. Edge3 (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Edge's comments sound good. It should also be moved to Services I think and there is no need for "as of" unless the status is likely to have changed in the last year. I am a bit cautious on this particular sentence, because I imagine editors may have varying viewpoints on whether their competitor should be included in the statement and I imagine there being "one of those" situations where I could stand accused of injecting spin into the article by omitting them. I could imagine it being done either way being acceptable.  CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the statement should be moved to the "Services" section. It belongs in the lead because it explains the significance of NextWorth to the reader: there are many electronics trade-in and recycling services available, so why should the reader care about this particular company? See MOS:INTRO. As for your second point, I think we should include "as of" because that statement could eventually become inaccurate. NextWorth may have been one of the best-known and largest of its kind in 2012, but that might not be true in 2015. The sentence should make sense to any reader in the future, even if the popularity of NextWorth has changed. See WP:ASOF. Edge3 (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I trust yours/ North John's judgement. CorporateM (Talk) 04:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * North? Surely you mean John Broughton. Edge3 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Title
Should the title of this article be moved from "NextWorth Solutions" to "NextWorth"? Edge3 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, me thinks. CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the article. Edge3 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Storage
I have a conflict of interest with NextWorth and have brought the article up to the "Good Article" standard. I'm using this space as storage/notes as new sources come out. Although any editor is welcome to add the sources, it is not a direct request to do so, just a holding pen to make it easy for me to track new information as I see it.

CorporateM (Talk) 05:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to Target, Lenovo appears to be a notable partner (PC Magazine)
 * Website traffic and trade-ins increase after the Holidays (TIME Magazine)