Talk:NextWorth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft for consideration[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

Request edit[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 {{edit COI|G}}. CorporateM (Talk) 19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good article[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:NextWorth Solutions/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Edge3 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I would be happy to review this article:

  • Please consider avoiding references in the infobox, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes)#References_in_infoboxes. The infobox usually summarizes content that already appears in the body of the article.  Done I left the cite for revenue in the infobox, because the info is not repeated in the article
  • Lead section: "The idea for NextWorth originated from business students at Babson College in 2005." --
    • Provide a link for Babson College. Done
    • Can you be more specific about the founders? What are their names? It might be nice to specify that the company was founded as part of a business school program.  Done
  • "In January 2007, NextWorth raised $1.5 million in series A funding." -- What does "series A funding" mean? Why is this important?  Done Funding is usually named as series A, B, C etc. based on their round (first, second, third). I just put "first round of funding"
  • "In 2009, NextWorth began a pilot project with Target" -- What did the pilot project entail? Here are a few hypothetical questions to get you started: Did NextWorth have some sort of physical presence in each Target store? Was it a kiosk or a collection box? Were actual people assigned to each Target store?
 Done I added that it was to facilitate the Target electronics trade-in program. (this content was added by John Broughton and I do notice some of it sourced to quotes in the article, which may be ok for what it is cited for). Being that this is a very tiny article without much source material, I don't have as much info as I'd like
  • "By 2011, the program was running in approximately 1,500 stores with Target Mobile centers." -- You should explain what a Target Mobile center is.
 Done I just trimmed it.
  • Related question: "In 2009, NextWorth began a pilot project with Target..." -- Where do the sources say that the pilot began in 2009? Edge3 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the one that added that material, but looking at the sources, I am presuming it is from this quote: “We did a pilot program with them the year before that was very successful, and we then rolled it out to 190 locations" I am open to removing it, as sourcing a quote from a company rep is a very low-quality source. OTOH, all the sources are pretty low-quality for this barely notable org and attribution could also address it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NextWorth was one of the best-known..." -- I would avoid this kind of language. Please see WP:WTW.
Hmm.... I don't know if I am responsible for that weasal word or not. It looks like it is sourced to the following statements: "NextWorth and Gazelle. The best-known of the buy-back sites....Gazelle and Nextworth are two of the biggest reselling portals" I'll think of a more neutral way to write it
 Done I think this was handled on the Talk page, though it's possible there will be some trailing discussion, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 04:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nextworth purchases used electronics, such as smartphones, digital cameras, iPads, and laptops, and resells or recycles them." -- The sentence structure here could be improved. Maybe it would be better to leave out "purchases" and simply say "Nextworth resells or recycles used electronics"? You should also consider that this sentence is redundant with the next one: "About 80-85 percent of trade-ins are re-sold as a refurbished item, while the remainder are sent to a network of partners for recycling." Perhaps combining the two would be the best solution.
 Done
  • "It also facilitates in-store trade-ins at partnered retailers like Target[14][15][16] [17][18] and Circuit City (before it went out of business in 2009[5]).[12]"
    • You already mention the partnership with Target in the "History" section. Mentioning it here seems redundant. Maybe you should just add the Circuit City partnership to the "History" section?
      • When you address this, you'll also have the opportunity to address issues with the following sentence in the "History" section: "At first, it only did iPods and iPhones." The first problem is that this source from Circuit City doesn't seem to mention NextWorth. The second problem is that we can't verify that NextWorth handled only iPods and iPhones at first. I don't find this book to be a reliable source on the timeline of the company's services, but I'm open to other opinions. My third concern is that the book doesn't cover NextWorth's history, but rather it's services and partnerships with Amazon and J&R.


    • Now that I've explained my concerns with this sentence, I think you can resolve them by removing the quoted sentence from the "History" section. You should then cover the partnerships with Target, Circuit City, Amazon, J&R, and any other retailers in the same paragraph or section. Edge3 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I removed the sentence and consolidated the Target/Circuit City bit to Services, pending more possible trimming per sourcing discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 04:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The information found in this source may be relevant. It says, "NextWorth, which currently only deals in iPods and iPhones made by Apple Inc., was founded in 2005." Maybe it's true that NextWorth traded only iPhones and iPods first, then expanded to other devices? If this statement can be well-sourced, then you should consider adding it back in. The source also mentions the retail partnerships in addition to the online service. Are the partnerships with Amazon, J&R, and other companies not significant enough to be mentioned in the article? Edge3 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "according to the company" and the partnerships mentioned (J&R Music and Computer World) are smaller shops used as anecdotal examples. How about something like "According to the company, it also has 15 partnerships with smaller retailers as of 2009". CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine, but the wording may have to be readjusted. Go ahead an put it in anyway... I'll take another look later to see how well it fits with the surrounding text. Edge3 (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Thanks for the edit, but I think the sentence is breaking up your discussion of the Target partnership. The sentences before and after this one mention Target. Please see if rearranging would be an improvement. Edge3 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please resolve the issue mentioned above? Let me know what your thoughts are on the partnership information. Edge3 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I split the discussion of Target and Circuit City for clarity. They're two separate partnerships, and the Circuit City partnership has already ended. Thus, the Target info is split by two sentences now. Please let me know what you think about reorganizing it. Edge3 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are too many citations here, which affect the readability of the sentence. Please consider removing unneeded citations. See WP:Citation overkill for guidance.  Done
  • "Users of the online service..." -- I wasn't even aware that an online service existed, since you had mentioned the partnerships with Target and Circuit City in the prior sentence. It might be useful to start by mentioning the various ways in which NextWorth provides services. You should then mention whether the process is different between the online and in-store services.
 Done I just re-ordered it a bit. The way I understand it, the online format is the main enchilada, while the in-store is a popular alternative because you can get a quote right away without guessing if they will evaluate the product at the condition the user submitted it for
  • "...developed at Babson College" -- Be more specific here. Was the algorithm developed by faculty doing research, or by students doing a school project, or by people who came up with the idea on campus property during their free time?  Done
  • "NextWorth offers more predictable pricing and convenience." -- What is the citation for this?  Done It was the huffington post source
  • "The Huffington Post recommended using NextWorth" -- The Huffington Post did no such thing. They only published an article by a writer who recommend NextWorth (and another competing service). I would recommend wording similar to the following: "The Huffington Post notes that sellers has 30 days to ship the product, which gives the sellers enough time to keep the old device until they purchase a new device." Please feel free to rephrase.
 Done
  • Does the seller really have 30 days to ship the product? This source says 21 days. In this case, it might be better to use NextWorth's website as the main source. Edge3 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their Terms and Conditions also appear to say 30 days. I'll add it as an additional source. CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The price sellers can obtain and how the prices compare between trade-in services vary depending on timing, model and condition." -- This sentence is unclear. Could you please rephrase?  Done
    The revised sentence is still unclear. For example, "price sellers obtain" doesn't have parallel structure compared to "how prices vary". Instead of saying "how prices vary", you could use the less awkward phrase "variation in price". Furthermore, when you say "price sellers obtain", are you referring to the average (or expected) price? Maybe it will be good to rewrite the entire sentence from scratch. Edge3 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure that you're providing hyperlinks to companies, brands, or websites, since readers might not be immediately familiar with them. I'm specifically thinking that you'll need links for Huffington Post, CNET, About.com, iPad, iPhone, etc.  Done

These are just my preliminary comments. I recognize that many of my suggested edits might not be required by the GA criteria, but it's usually good to improve an article beyond the minimum standards. :) Once you've resolved many of my concerns, I'll take a closer look at the sources to check for verifiability. Edge3 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Orphan tag, I took a look at what links here for their competitor for ideas and saw their investment firm Venrock was a link, but it looks like for NextWorth their investors are apparently non-disclosed. I also noticed a lot of similar services are mentioned with wikilinks at Electronic_waste_in_the_United_States#Reuse and it may be valid to add a "NextWorth and Gazelle are the two largest..." type statement to address the orphan tag. Another option might be to start a new List article for electroncis recycling services. I have used List articles in the past (where the list article already existed) to address the orphan issue. CorporateM (Talk) 05:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding links to Electronic_waste_in_the_United_States#Reuse would be a good solution for now. You could also create a new list if you want to, but that's not required. I should note that we don't have to spend too much effort finding a way to fix this issue; sometimes articles can't be de-orphaned. Edge3 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Link added along with one for Gazelle. Edge3 (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that NextWorth will issue its check to the seller "about ten days later", but this source says 14 days. Which one is correct? Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Wall Street Journal said "a week"[1], the Terms and Conditions[2] say "about 10 days", but the How it Works site[3] may explain why there are so many variations in how long it takes (delivery time depends on payment method). We could use a few different cites and say "3-14 days depending on payment method". A bit of original synthesis technically speaking, but a good use of common sense I think. CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this sounds good to me. In the subsequent paragraph, where you talk about the retail partnerships, you can mention that the sellers will get their money immediately at the store. Edge3 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some extensive copy-editing. A couple things I came across:

  • Should we move this to the Pricing section?:"NextWorth sets its prices through an algorithm developed by MBA students and a professor at Babson College.[13]"
  • I noticed while I was copyediting that the Pricing section use to balance that sellers get better prices on eBay or Craigslist with that NextWorth and similar services are more predictable and convenient. The source says: "however NextWorth offers more predictable pricing and convenience." I didn't remember when/how this was removed (it's possible I even took it out accidentally). I just used a similar service when I switched carriers and I used it because it was easy and eBay is a pain. CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that both of these are appropriate edits to the Pricing section. Please implement them, and I'll take another look. Edge3 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I also trimmed the 30 days item from the Pricing section, because this is redundant with the Services section which also mentions that users have 30 days to ship the product. CorporateM (Talk) 13:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to CNET, most of the trade-in prices at NextWorth are "pretty fair" though they were surprised some items didn't go for as much as they expected." -- This sentence could be phrased better. "they were surprised" might not necessarily refer to CNET... Also note that the article was written by only one editor, who might not have been representing the entire publication. I suggest the following: "A CNET editor found most of the trade-in prices at NextWorth to be "pretty fair", though he was expecting higher prices for some items." Edge3 (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
  • "Many sellers are surprised when they are offered a higher price than they were originally quoted after NextWorth inspected the product, or disappointed when the condition NextWorth assess that the condition did not match the seller's description." Be careful here... the source doesn't actually say anything about the emotions or reactions of NextWorth's customers, so it wouldn't reflect the source to say that "sellers are surprised". Furthermore, the source doesn't say that an overpriced quote is equally frequent as an underpriced quote -- it only says that sellers will "occasionally" get the higher price. Thus, it's inappropriate to say "many" to describe the number of sellers that receive higher than expected quotes.
It might be a good idea for you to consider the main purpose of having this sentence. You can easily shorten it without losing much meaning. Doesn't it seem obvious that the sellers will often receive offers that are higher or lower than the initial quote? Edge3 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered adding an image? It might be useful to add a picture of iPods and iPhones, along with other devices that NextWorth accepts. It would even be better if the picture is taken at an in-person trade-in site. Edge3 (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went to a Target near me, but there wasn't like a trade-in "booth" or anything to take a picture of. I don't think it makes sense to throw in an image of a random electronic device. We could do a screenshot, which is common for articles about websites or software. CorporateM (Talk) 03:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of screenshots, and I don't think it would be helpful to have one on this article. The article is about the company, not a website, and the website is not the primary service of this company. (Facebook and Wikipedia, on the other hand, should have screenshots on their articles.) I agree that adding an extra image is not essential in this case. You can ignore my suggestion. Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The idea for NextWorth originated from business students at Babson College in 2005." -- Perhaps it would be easier to say "NextWorth was founded by business students...."
 Done

I've finished looking through the writing style, content, and sources. Please resolve the remaining suggestions as I conduct my final pass through the article. Edge3 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this sentence still a problem? "The price sellers obtain and how prices vary between trade-in services depends on timing (release of new models, and market fluctuations), the specific model being sold, and the product's condition.[26]" It seems fine to me. CorporateM (Talk) 15:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still think it could be written better. It seems that this sentence boils down to: "The variation in prices depends on timing, model, and condition." You don't have to trim it down all the way to this, but the sentence would certainly improve if you take out words that are clearly not needed. Edge3 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

  • "If NextWorth appraises a product at a lower condition than the seller expected, they can get an explanation from NextWorth, challenge the quote, or reject it and get the product back." -- This sentence doesn't seem to belong in its current paragraph, since the rest of the paragraph talks about partnerships. Perhaps you could move it to the end of the preceding paragraph? Edge3 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 DoneCorporateM (Talk) 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. I am ready to pass this GA nomination once the remaining issue is resolved. Edge3 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the remaining issue? CorporateM (Talk) 00:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned it in my previous edit. Edge3 (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that the target-related content should be sequential followed by the others? CorporateM (Talk) 01:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does that fix it? Not sure I understand. CorporateM (Talk) 02:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that fixes the problem perfectly. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Edit[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[4][5] say that NextWorth AND competitor Gazelle are the two leading services:

  • "Gazelle and Nextworth are two of the biggest reselling portals"[6]
  • "NextWorth and Gazelle. The best-known of the buy-back sites"[7]

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)[reply]

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

Title[edit]

Should the title of this article be moved from "NextWorth Solutions" to "NextWorth"? Edge3 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me thinks. CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article. Edge3 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storage[edit]

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.

  • In addition to Target, Lenovo appears to be a notable partner (PC Magazine)
  • Website traffic and trade-ins increase after the Holidays (TIME Magazine)
  • "3 best places to sell your old gadgets". Consumer Reports. April 22, 2014. Retrieved May 2, 2014.

CorporateM (Talk) 05:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NextWorth&oldid=1207202847"