This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of
hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
education and
education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
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 Jost13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Zorn00:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Jost13:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Zorn14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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 Jost00:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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 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 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).
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 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:
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.
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)reply
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
conflict of interest has been implemented.
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.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
conflict of interest has been implemented.
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
conflict of interest has been implemented.
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. [1]Mcro16 (
talk)
19:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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” [2][3]
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…
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.” [7]
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)reply
Updated Correction: Should read “Flocabulary is a Brooklyn-based company that creates educational hip-hop videos along with interactive activities and assessments.” [8][9][10][11]Mcro16 (
talk)
22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
conflict of interest has been implemented.
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)reply
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)reply
4. Old Logo
Error: The current image is the company’s old logo, which is no longer in use.
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)reply
Part of an edit requested by an editor with a
conflict of interest has been implemented.
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)reply
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)reply
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.’" [1]
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.” [6]
In February 2015, Alleywatch.com said Flocabulary “certainly makes the lessons more enjoyable to learn and much easier to remember." [8]
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.” [14]Mcro16 (
talk)
22:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply