This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

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

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles 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.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

NPOV dispute[edit]

Promotional tone and content[edit]

I disagree with the reason given in removing the tags. The article still reads more like a promotional PR piece than like an encyclopedia article. It focuses on parading awards etc. instead of describing what the firm actually is and does. (One also wonders if besides all this praise heaped upon them, the company was ever subject to criticism?)

Some examples for non-ecyclopedic advertising language (see also WP:PEACOCK): "prestigious", "renowned".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of certain "peacock" terms[edit]

"Renowned" has been removed and replaced with "highly regarded." I have also removed uncited uses of "prestigious."

This article seems no more promotional than many other firms' entries (see entries for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and others), yet it backs up all positive claims with citations to independent evaluations from Chambers and Partners, Vault, and IFLR. My recommendation would be to remove the NPOV tag, or else apply it to other firms' entries.

Regards, Lonestar1836 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)d[reply]

Seems fine to me[edit]

I agree with Lonestar1836 that this article is no more promotional than any other article about a successful business. His edits resolved what valid concerns there were. It's not just "parading awards" but is listing some of the independent recognition the firm as received, which in my opinion is actually a must for articles like these to establish Wikipedia's requirement of notability. (Not every law firm out there deserves an article, only those with this sort of outside notability do.) Looking at the firm's website, it's easy to see that there could be about 1000 more awards in that list, so it doesn't seem excessive. Unless you have more specific objections, I think the NPOV tag should be removed.--24.193.115.222 (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?[edit]

There haven't been any more negative comments since my changes in November. I'm not sure what the protocol is on removing the neutrality tag at the top of the article, but I think it's time for it to happen.

Lonestar1836 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call[edit]

The last objection to this page was made nearly seven months ago. If no one posts any more objections to the article's tone or content by March 1, 2010, I will remove the tag.

Lonestar1836 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

I'm going to remove this NPOV tag now. Also note that no other law firm pages have similar tags, but they do have similar language. See Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Terrio (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]