![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
{{Request edit}}
I've just created this Talk page, so my guess is that no one (or almost no one) is watching it—not to mention the article it serves has only existed for a short time. So anyone who might see this immediately may already be aware I've been working on Talk pages to improve a related article, Academy of Achievement. With that nearly done, I've been hired by EduCap to see what can be done with this article. Because I have a conflict of interest here, it's my intention to refrain from editing the article directly. Instead, I'll present an alternate draft and explain why I think it's better.
First, here is the draft, currently in my userspace: User:WWB Too/EduCap
The current article is essentially one long controversies section, and while those topics are relevant, there's almost nothing here about the company's history or operations. So I'd like to expand this article, retain important details from the current version, and add more information based on reliable sources. The differences between the my draft and the current version:
With this draft, I've tried to provide some context for the information that is currently in the article, particularly with regard to background on how the company was founded and operates. I hope that I've succeed, although I'm certainly open to any constructive suggestions that others might have for the wording or details included. WWB Too ( talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I consider the draft to be making progress, but have some suggestions:
Hi DGG, following your latest reply I have gone back to my research and made some changes to the draft in order to answer some of your questions and address the issues you raised. I'll outline below the changes made:
Anyhow, I'm very interested to see what you think about the latest changes overall. Hope you agree this just about ready. Cheers, WWB Too ( talk) 23:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi DGG, thanks for these sources. I had reviewed but not included the HuffPo and National Review articles as both repeated information from and / or significantly quoted from sources used in my draft already. As to the Businessweek company overview, I'm concerned about including information from here since some details in the overview do not appear to be correct. For instance, it states that the company was renamed EduCap, Inc. in 2003, however multiple sources from prior to that year refer to the company as EduCap, Inc. Also, the company is not a subsidiary of Wells Fargo: it was Servus Financial, EduCap's loan servicing company, which was acquired by and became a subsidiary of Wells Fargo. I hadn't previously seen the 2007 Chronicle article, nor the TPM piece, but I've made the following changes to add information from these sources:
I've also been pointed to an additional source by the company (an article from NRTA Live & Learn, Spring 2006), and have made the following changes to add further details to History and operations:
With these changes in place, I believe article is reasonably complete, not promotional, and in line with WP:NPOV. It may not be WP:PERFECT, but of course that's unattainable, so if you agree that this represents a real improvement on the existing article and that it is neutral and reliably sourced, I'd really appreciate it if you would take it live. And since the article is WP:NOTFINISHED, certainly others could make changes later. Are you willing to do the merge at this point? WWB Too ( talk) 21:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi DGG, the Businessweek link is a directory entry which seems to be provided by "Businessweek.com's data partners", not by the magazine's editorial staff. What's more, there are already good sources in the draft providing more detailed information. For instance, in the matter of what Wells Fargo now owns, the Businessweek.com listing provides scant information, whereas the source I had used is a bylined Star Tribune article published at the time Wells Fargo acquired Servus from EduCap.
As for the fellowships, I'm not sure why you don't consider the Washingtonian to be neutral, but there are indeed additional sources. For the NYU and Harvard fellowships, I've found this NYT article, this page on the NYU website, and this page on the Harvard website, all of which confirm that funds from the Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation established fellowships at the two universities. I've added each of these sources to the draft:
Per your suggestion, I have removed the mention of the recent (but arguably minor) donation to the respite care center, and have made a few more cosmetic changes:
Given these changes, are you any more comfortable making the merge? Also: I'm certainly not opposed to you making the merge and then making edits as you see fit. I just think what we have in this draft is far better than what's live now, and I'd like to see our hard work come to fruition. Let me know what you think. WWB Too ( talk) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've completed the merger, but I do have one concern. As I read it, Educap has 3 companies; however, only the Foundation has a separate section in the article. I'm concerned that this gives WP:UNDUE prominence to the Foundation (i.e., places too much emphasis on their charitable works rather than their money-making work). For me, the easiest way to fix this seems to be to change "History and operations" into just "History"; create a new Level 2 heading on "Operations" or "Organization" or "Segments" (i'm pretty flexible on the name), and move the final paragraph on Loan to Learn Level 3 heading under that section, and place the Foundation as a second level 3 heading there. What do others think? Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)