Talk:Fort Myer Construction

Section titles
I think it's more appropriate to have this conversation here. At any rate, while I'm open to discussing alternative section titles, I will point out that WP:CRITS which you cited on my talk page is an essay, not a guideline, and I'm not sure I find it entirely persuasive in this context. While I can agree with it for sections on the critical receptions of books, etc. here we're talking about a section whose content is entirely about corrupt business practices. As such, I think that it's misleading to leave it as "Notable contracts", as there are no positive notable contracts to speak of. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to rewrite this section as a subsection of "Operations" (after all, contracts are part of their operations, right?), with a sub-heading along the lines of "Government bribery" or "Overbilling and bribery". signed,Rosguill talk 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the idea behind avoiding controversy sections is that they encourage other editors to dig up more controversies to put in that section. And that it could put undue weight on the controversies. But I think your characterization of the section content and company's actions is fair. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources and tone
Parts of this article read like an FMC press release. BHolmes555 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)