Talk:Arthur Andersen/Archives/2016

Introduction
The introduction to this article is terrible, removed the following sentences:

"and later failed" In 2006 the last part of Enron was sold, to state it failed is false. "The other national accounting and consulting firms bought some of the practices of Arthur Andersen." vague and referenced.

"The verdict was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States." No explanation is given previously to this sentence as to what the verdict is. At best, it is meaningless, at worst it may lead some to believe Anderson were proved to have not been at fault, rather than to have obstructed justice.

"The damage to its reputation, however, has prevented it from returning as a viable business, though it still nominally exists." This sentence suggests the obstruction of justice verdict was the only thing that killed Anderson, rather than their failure to accurately audit. Furthermore, Arthur Anderson still exists, ergo is a viable company - invalidating this segment.

No detail has been lost from the article as any accurate information is repeated in later sections. The second paragraph is still dreadful, I would happily see that go. Epanchin (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)