Talk:Year Up

Logo to add

Hello, I'm an employee of Year Up, taking over from my former colleague who submitted this article for review, and representing the organization on Wikipedia.

Now that this article is part of the encyclopedia, I would like to offer a logo file that can be added to the infobox. Although I'd hoped to upload this myself to make it easier for editors, I'm not able to because my account is too new, so I'm providing a link to a logo file for editors to use.

Here's the file link [1] for the Year Up logo.

Can an editor help me with this? Thank you so much! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I cannot upload a logo for you. Please refer to the following link to do it yourself. PK650 (talk) 09:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, PK650. I'll try again on uploading and see if I'm able to get it to work, then I'll make another request here. LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 16:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Request edit

Hi again! I'm making another request as I've uploaded the logo now. Can an editor please add it to the infobox?

Here's the logo file: File:Year Up logo 2023.png

Thanks again, LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 10-JUL-2023

  Non-free use rationale is incomplete  

• On the image's wiki page, the media data and Non-free use rationale section is incomplete. The section "author or copyright owner" is incomplete. Please enter this information. When ready to proceed, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  00:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I checked the Summary code the author part wasn't showing up for me so I had to figure out how to add it. I think it's fixed now.

Thanks again, LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Reply 11-JUL-2023

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  00:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Hi User:Alexandermcnabb and User:CNMall41, would you both be able to discuss with me about the tag added to the top of the Year Up article relating to notability? I'd love to understand how I can help confirm notability. I'd thought that when the draft was submitted by my colleague and it was reviewed via the Articles for Creation process, it was felt that Year Up is notable based on the references. Is there something else that I can provide now to show notability?

The organization has been around for over 20 years and we've received significant coverage during that time, including academic journal articles and research reports, and media such as a 60 Minutes report, and even the more recent New York Times coverage. I know that there's not a lot of sources listed in the references, I can suggest some ones to add if that would help?

Thanks so much! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

It was Alexandermcnabb who placed the tag on the page you would need to ask them about their notability concern. I see it was me who approved this through the articles for creation process but being "approved" is only a peer-review and not necessarily a stamp saying that someone else cannot disagree. Obviously they did which means it could be a candidate for AfD where the community as a whole can decide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, CNMall41. Appreciate your thoughts.

Alexandermcnabb, let me know if you're willing to discuss.

Also, I noticed that Frgmsk resolved the tag and commented that it seemed to meet the criteria for notability the other day but then reverted it upon seeing this discussion.

Thanks for your engagement on this topic! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Being that Frgmsk has very few edits, I would find it suspicious that they would remove the tag in the first place. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi folks. I have a concern regarding the tone of the coverage presented, which appears to be the result of PR outreach rather than third party, secondary coverage independent of the subject. It is, to be fair, a mild concern and would be resolved if a couple of those there Google Scholar hits were added into the article - and perhaps a review of the tone of the article itself (do Mr Chevarian's motivations really belong in an encyclopaedic article?). I'll then happily remove the tag or defer to @CNMall41 to do so - or indeed CNMall41 or any other editor who thinks I'm incorrect to worry about notability can do so at any time - the tag is a request for pairs of eyes rather than an outright condemnation! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Alexandermcnabb - I appreciate your comments! Would it be appropriate for me to suggest some of the edits you mention, given my COI? Again, I really appreciate the dialog and support as a wiki-newbie. LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Tone needs fixed for sure. As far as notability, it may be more appropriate to add "sources available but need added" tag as opposed to notability but I don't really have an opinion on removing the current notability tag. Maybe allow the edit requests to run through and get everything taken care of at once. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Would it be best to start a new edit request here with suggestions on tone and sources? LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Notability follow-up

This request is a follow-up to my discussion above with User:Alexandermcnabb and User:CNMall41 about the tag added to the top of the Year Up article relating to notability.

From their suggestions, I have some requests to update the article:

1. The first few sentences of the History, about Chertavian's background, could be trimmed back.

Text now: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company. Chertavian participated in the Big Brother program and helped his "little brother" gain a college education. He wanted to find a way to help others with similar backgrounds access education and career opportunities that they might otherwise not be aware of or have the support to apply for.

Trimmed text: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company.

2. Also in the History, the sentences about the initial Boston cohort of students could be trimmed, if editors feel that would help tone.

Text now: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area. Fourteen of the participants received job offers for roles with average salaries of $35,000 per year.

Trimmed text: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area.

3. To help add academic sources, the following reference could be used to clarify the age of Year Up's participants.

New text for the program section: As of 2018, the program was aimed at young people and accepted participants aged between 18 and 24 years old.

Before I offer other sources to add, I wanted to get feedback about how best to do that. I've erred on the side of using the source to add straightforward information, but if there's another way editors would prefer to see such sources used, I'd be grateful for guidance. Thanks so much!

References

LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal addresses wording within the page. However, that is not related to notability. Notability comes from significant coverage in reliable sources. Can you have a look at WP:ORGCRIT and provide some sourcing that meets this guideline? That would help evaluate the notability concerns and if the tag should be removed. I will do a search in the meantime but will wait for your response in case I miss anything in my own search. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:CNMall41 and User:STEMinfo. I have some more sources to share and I wanted to explain my request above. I was intending to respond to User:Alexandermcnabb's note "It is, to be fair, a mild concern and would be resolved if a couple of those there Google Scholar hits were added into the article - and perhaps a review of the tone of the article itself (do Mr Chevarian's motivations really belong in an encyclopaedic article?)."

So, based on that, I was making this first request to 1) help address tone and 2) add one new source to the page from the Google Scholar results for Year Up. Does that make sense?

I'm happy to also provide more media coverage that is in-depth about the organization, and I believe that some of the existing sources may meet that standard already? For instance, the NYT piece is independent, reliable, secondary and provides significant information about Year Up and the Heinrich journal article in Focus is likewise independent, reliable, secondary and provides an analytical review of the program's performance as well as providing information about how the program is organized.

Here are some other sources that I hope meet the standard:

• Report from the National Center for Education Evaluation at IES
• NPR
• another NYT piece
• Delaware Business Times
• CNBC

If these sources would help, what is the best way to integrate them? Thanks again for continuing to engage with me on this topic! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

[2][3][4] Boston Globe coverage not included in article. STEMinfo (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The CNBC sources seems good as well as a few others provided by STEMinfo. I have no objection to the tag removal. For implementing them, I would suggest going through the page and finding out the best places to use them to replace some of the others. You can then request the replacement on the talk page user the edit request template to notify reviewers. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:CNMall41, that's great to hear! I'll follow up with a request to add the sources. For now, I'm wondering what to do about this request. Would you be able to make the edits I've suggested above? Or shall I close this request and focus on requesting addition of the new sources? LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

STEMinfo, I don't always catch things on my watch list so I didn't see this until now (sorry). Best to tag if needs immediate attention. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41: This wasn't just for you. It was for any interested editor. I didn't want to bug you if you weren't already coming to this page. STEMinfo (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Unable to implement. I would like to implement the trimmed text; however, I am unable to do so for the following reasons:

1. Ref notes 1 and 2 are not linked to anything in the References list.
2. The Boston Herald source given by the COI editor does not contain a URL. In and of itself, this would not be a problem. However, to verify the requested prose, the verbatim text from the source should be provided under the |quote= parameter.
3. The three sources suggested by STEMinfo are paywalled. I understand that it was not the COI editor who proposed using those sources, but if they would like to consider using them (per STEMinfo's suggestion) then they should likewise have the verbatim text applied to the ref note using the aforementioned |quote= parameter.
4. Other additional sources have been proposed by the COI editor to either replace or augment the initial edit request. These sources were offered in a reply post devoid of information suggesting where these new references are to be placed and to what text they apply to. These sources need to be placed within a new edit request at the exact location where the text (which they verify) resides. (See WP:INTEGRITY.)
5. The suggested text "The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian,[1] who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company[2][3] shows ref notes 2 and 3 bundled at the end of the text. Ref note 2 should be deleted from appearing in the request (its underlying information has already been deleted [see #1 above]) but the inactivated note number is confusing, and need not appear there. A new edit request posted by the COI editor should eliminate these formatting issues.
6. The Bloom/Miller source titled Helping Young People Move Up has two issues: The authoring organization, MDRC, has not been Wikilinked. I would like additional information on who this organization is. Also, the page number from the report where the verifying information resides has not been given with the request. The report is 8 pages long, and I'm certain the COI editor does not expect the reviewing editor to read all 8 pages in order to verify the requested information.

If all of these issues were resolved (and then posted in a new edit request below this reply post), I would not see anything standing in the way of implementation. Regards,  Spintendo  21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

New request for trims and sources

This is an updated request for the proposed trims and new source I'd originally put forward above, plus some further sources that editors have agreed will strengthen the page. I'm making this request as an employee of Year Up, and have a conflict of interest, which is why I've not just made the edits.

I've done my best to follow the feedback above from User:Spintendo. Since sources in the content to trim are already included in the Wikipedia article and have been reviewed by editors, in my last request I'd copied the wiki text directly from the article to avoid any confusion or formatting issues. I didn't know this would be a barrier to review. Where just the short "ref name" versions of references are used in the existing article text, I've now added the full references below to help with checking. In case this is reviewed by User:CNMall41 or User:STEMinfo, this does mean that the wiki text of the "text now" in my requests won't look exactly the same as the wiki text for the corresponding details in the article's edit tab. I hope it's not too confusing!

1. The first few sentences of the History, about Chertavian's background, could be trimmed back.

Text now: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company. Chertavian participated in the Big Brother program and helped his "little brother" gain a college education. He wanted to find a way to help others with similar backgrounds access education and career opportunities that they might otherwise not be aware of or have the support to apply for.

Trimmed text: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company.

2. Also in the History, the sentences about the initial Boston cohort of students could be trimmed, if editors feel that would help tone. I've also updated the sourcing to add quotes for the reference that is not online.

Text now: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area. Fourteen of the participants received job offers for roles with average salaries of $35,000 per year.

Trimmed text: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area.

3. To help add sources, the following reference from MDRC could be used to clarify the age of Year Up's participants. This could be added to the Programs section.

New text: As of 2018, the program was aimed at young people and accepted participants aged between 18 and 24 years old.

4. To add a new reference from CNBC, can the sentence about companies that Year Up works with can be updated and the existing source replaced with this new one?

Text and source now: As of 2016, the organization worked with 250 companies that provided funding for the program and took on interns.

Edited text and new source: As of 2020, the organization worked with more than 250 companies that provided funding for the program and took on interns.

5. To add a new reference from The Boston Globe, can it replace the sourcing at the end of the following statement?

Text and source now: The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students,

Text with new source: The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students,

6. To add another new reference from The Boston Globe, can a new sentence be added after this existing one and the Globe source be added as the source?

Text and source now: The majority of funding for Year Up is provided by its corporate partners.

Edited text and new source: The majority of funding for Year Up is provided by its corporate partners. Additional funding is provided by sponsorships, donations and public funding, the latter of which represented 2% of the organization's budget as of 2018.

Thanks so much!

References

LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 4-OCT-2023

  Unable to implement  

• The COI editor stated "where just the short "ref name" versions of references are used in the existing article text, I've now added the full references below to help with checking." Sadly, this was not the case.
• I count four separate instances in the edit request above where, under the sections marked "trimmed text" or "edited text with new source" (to be added) the COI editor has included shortened ref names (e.g., <ref name=BostonBusinessJournal2006/>, <ref name=Geekwire/>, <ref name=CNBC/> [CNBC is listed twice] with the forward slash at the end of the ref name) and not their full citations (i.e., the ref name with full reference information and no forward slash at the end of the ref name).
• My suggestion would be to go over the edit request, taking care to ensure that all shortened ref names are removed. There is simply no reason why shortened ref names need to be included in talk page edit requests.

Here is an example of why these are unnecessary (and ultimately troublesome, if used):

Text to be removed

Please remove this text from the article's History section.


Text to be added

Please add this text to the article's History section.

References

• You will notice in the box above that in both sections (text to be removed and text to be added) the long version of "ref names" were used, and yet, the software still consolidated them both as the exact same reference in the References section below the box. I did not need to include one as the long version and the other as the shortened version. The software accepted both long versions.
• Placing shortened ref names anywhere in talk page edit requests is a recipe for error. I've lost count how many edit requests I've seen which follow the same result when shortened ref names are used by the COI editor in their request:

1. The COI editor uses shortened ref names in the requested text to be added
2. The reviewer copies and pastes that requested text into the article
3. When the changes are implemented in the article, an error message displays stating Cite error: A ref name was invoked but never defined

• The COI editor is kindly asked not to use shortened ref names with their request. Please re-check your edit request, taking care to ensure no shortened ref names appear anywhere in the request, and submit that new edit request below this reply post at your earliest convenience.

Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  01:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Posting a further updated version, per Spintendo's feedback above. I'm sorry, I thought the goal was to ensure that the References list had an entry for each source, I didn't realize the issue was copying over into the article, since I assumed the short references would work fine if the full version is already in the article.

1. The first few sentences of the History, about Chertavian's background, could be trimmed back.

Text now: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company. Chertavian participated in the Big Brother program and helped his "little brother" gain a college education. He wanted to find a way to help others with similar backgrounds access education and career opportunities that they might otherwise not be aware of or have the support to apply for.

Trimmed text: The organization was founded in Boston in 2000 by Gerald Chertavian, who worked as a banker on Wall Street and later co-founded a software company.

2. Also in the History, the sentences about the initial Boston cohort of students could be trimmed, if editors feel that would help tone. I've also updated the sourcing to add quotes for the reference that is not online.

Text now: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area. Fourteen of the participants received job offers for roles with average salaries of $35,000 per year.

Trimmed text: In June 2002, Year Up's first class of students graduated its one-year program. The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students, seventy percent of whom were from the Greater Boston area.

3. To help add sources, the following reference from MDRC could be used to clarify the age of Year Up's participants. This could be added to the Programs section.

New text: As of 2018, the program was aimed at young people and accepted participants aged between 18 and 24 years old.

4. To add a new reference from CNBC, can the sentence about companies that Year Up works with can be updated and the existing source replaced with this new one?

Text and source now: As of 2016, the organization worked with 250 companies that provided funding for the program and took on interns.

Edited text and new source: As of 2020, the organization worked with more than 250 companies that provided funding for the program and took on interns.

5. To add a new reference from The Boston Globe, can it replace the sourcing at the end of the following statement?

Text and source now: The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students,

Text with new source: The program had started in Boston in 2001 with 22 students,

6. To add another new reference from The Boston Globe, can a new sentence be added after this existing one and the Globe source be added as the source?

Text and source now: The majority of funding for Year Up is provided by its corporate partners.

Edited text and new source: The majority of funding for Year Up is provided by its corporate partners. Additional funding is provided by sponsorships, donations and public funding, the latter of which represented 2% of the organization's budget as of 2018.

Thanks again to editors! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

 Implemented All except the prose "As of 2018, the program was aimed at young people and accepted participants aged between 18 and 24 years old" because specific directions for this text's emplacement were not given (e.g., " This could be added to the Programs section.", where in the programs section?).

Regards,  Spintendo  20:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Final item completed. Confirmed content in source and placed requested text in programs section. STEMinfo (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, STEMinfo and Spintendo! Glad to see these edits made. I'll open the tag discussion back up for editors now. LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Notability tag

Hi all, Now that the trims have been made and additional sourcing has been added to the article, I wanted to bring User:CNMall41, User:STEMinfo and User:Alexandermcnabb back to discuss whether the tag at the top of the page regarding notability can be resolved. Do you all feel that there is now enough sourcing that meets the WP:ORGCRIT guideline? Thanks so much for your continued involvement and help! Just in case anyone new to the page sees this, I am an employee of Year Up, which is why I'm discussing this with editors and haven't tried to remove the tag myself. LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the sourcing is better and would likely survive AfD but will leave it to the other editors to opine as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I also de-orphaned this and removed the orphan tag. And the more categories template. STEMinfo (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:CNMall41 and User:STEMinfo! I'm glad the sourcing looks good now and appreciate STEMinfo helping with the orphan issue, too. I appreciate your help! LIrwin with Year Up (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)