Talk:Brown Mackie College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges 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.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Edit reduction[edit]

This used to be a pretty good sized article with college history and locations. It seems to have been pruned down over the years, so I'm reclassifying it as a Stub until it can be brought back up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed update and expansion[edit]

Greetings to anyone who is watching this page!. As the comment immediately above (from just over a year ago) mentions, this article is currently a stub, and I would like to help expand it. Worth stating right up front: I am a consultant to Education Management Corporation (EDMC), Brown Mackie College's parent company. As part of my work for EDMC, I have researched and prepared a new draft for this article which I would like to present for review. Because of my financial COI, I will not add it directly; my goal is to find consensus for this new version. You can read it at User:WWB_Too/Brown_Mackie_College

My draft retains all of the current information in the article, however I have located sources to support the current details, and add new information based on what I was able to find in available sources. Here are the major changes I have made:

  • I have added a History section to the article, which covers the development of the school since the foundation of the original Brown Mackie College in 1892. Since the history of the school extends back so far I have used a few sources I was only able to find in the Nexis news archive. I'm happy to provide the relevant text from the articles for any editors who are unable to view the full text of the source. Just let me know.
  • I have also added in a Schools and programs section which provides a brief overview of the degrees available, areas of focus and current enrollment figures.
  • I removed the current External link to Brown Mackie's Twitter page because social media websites are included on the WP:LINKSTOAVOID list.
  • The userspace version has a {{user page}} tag, and both the non-free logo and categories are currently disabled; all of these should be changed when the article is moved to the mainspace.

Thanks in advance to anyone who this request., and let me know if you have any questions. If there are any edits you would like to make to the draft in my user space please feel free to do so. And if you have any questions, I've got this page watchlisted. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a few comments on your draft's talk page. Overall, I think it's a credible and value-added draft. I hope others will leave feedback as well. Let's give it about 2 weeks. If you've responded to all feedback appropriately at that time and there are no outstanding issues, I'll make the edits. I'm an admin. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind. This page isn't protected. You can make them yourself after 2 weeks! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Acdixon, thanks for the quick review of my draft! I'll look into your feedback today and let you know when I've made updates. I'm in no rush, so two weeks is no problem at all. Also, even though the page isn't protected I am still looking for another editor to carry out the update to the live article once we finish revising the draft. As a COI editor I follow Jimbo's proposed WP:BRIGHTLINE guideline and strongly prefer to avoid any direct edits to articles, even when there is a clear consensus. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
No problem with that. I'll make the edit once you've gotten and responded to the requested feedback. Just drop me a line on my talk page when you feel like it's ready to go. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Collapsed box includes feedback on my proposed draft, originally posted by User:Acdixon to User talk:WWB Too/Brown Mackie College. To consolidate discussion, I've copied it here, and my reply follows.

Thanks, Acdixon. I've looked over your feedback on my draft and I understand your concerns. I've put my replies in the same order as your feedback.

  • No problem removing "career-focused" from the draft; I've reworded it to simply say "degrees".
  • I've revised the paragraph that discusses the transition to iPads, removing the mention of how much Brown Mackie spent, and clarified how Apple was involved in the partnership, based on the information in the second to last paragraph of the Campus Technology article. Let me know if these changes are what you were looking for. Feel free to make any adjustments to the draft as well.
  • I very much agree: I always prefer to use independent sources, and I think it is particularly important when presenting suggested revisions as a COI editor. That being said, I wasn't able to find third-party sources for several pieces of information I felt should be included. I am primarily using EDMC or Brown Mackie sources to support unexceptional details; I felt like it was better to rely on a primary source then to have a large gap in the school's history.
  • Related to the point above, I was probably overzealous in cutting their names because the only source I could find was the Brown Mackie About Us page. It's back now.

Let me know your thoughts on these remaining issues and I can make any necessary changes to the draft. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I touched up a couple of things, but I think it's in decent shape now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Your edits look great—good catch on the A.B. Mackie page! I'm sorry to say I didn't even think to look. Ready when you are. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This is now Yes check.svg Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Requesting help with Controversy section[edit]

Hello, I worked with editors last year to improve and expand this article on behalf of Education Management Corporation (EDMC), and I've been monitoring edits here since then. On April 15, an IP editor added information about ongoing investigations to the article's lead. The sentence was quickly moved down to a new Controversy section by another editor. I agree that the sentence does not belong in the article's introduction (this IP editor has a history of editing the article ledes of schools owned by EDMC), but I'm not sure that a controversy section is the correct placement for it either.

Wikipedia guidelines state that controversy sections should be avoided unless the information can't be placed elsewhere. The reasoning is that it puts undue weight on critical views, rather than balancing both negative and positive points (see WP:CRITICISM).

Since it is just one sentence, I'd like to suggest incorporating the information into the History section. Another idea might be to rename the section Investigations. Either way, I'd like to propose including a date in the sentence and supporting it with secondary sources, like this one from Forbes and this one from the South Bend Tribune, rather than the current references which are a press release and a government website. I've made those changes here:

Due to my financial COI, I do not make edits myself, so I'm hoping an editor here will be able to make these changes. I'm interested in hearing other editors' thoughts as well. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I quite loathe Controversy sections myself. Based on my experiences with other articles, they tend to attract "critic-cruft". It's amazing what some folks consider a "controversy". With only the information we have right now, I think the sentence could go either in the History section, or we could rename the section "Investigations". If there is any substantial fallout from the investigations, I suspect the latter will be the better approach going forward. If not, the former may be the better route, with a single follow-up sentence saying no wrongdoing was found, or whatever. Either way, the secondary sources are to be preferred, I think, to the extant ones. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Acdixon, thanks for taking a look at this for me. I agree completely with your assessment. As of right now, there hasn't been any conclusion or fallout from the investigations, so perhaps the sentence will work best in History until there's more to say? Since I don't make any direct edits myself, I was wondering if you would mind making the edits in the article as you feel appropriate? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Very cool, thanks for handling! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)