Talk:McKinsey & Company/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 10:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominator: CorporateM (talk · contribs) 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I got this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Notify me if you have any major time issues. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria The prose is crisp, structure is good and sourcing looks fine. Let's see if I can dig anything up to show below. -11:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead needs slight expansion 11:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC) 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Minor comments addressed and meets all criteria. 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Minor comments addressed and meets all criteria. 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Minor comments addressed and meets all criteria. 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Main
 * For a layreader, I'm finding it a bit hard without many wikilinks. Consider linking once at first mention all the words which you feel are jargons or too technical to understand for people like us. For a specific example, consider the intro statement itself and improve it with WP:CONTEXTLINK. Another would be linking something here: "consulting on using accounting principles as a management tool".
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Early history-> What does "idea for McKinsey" mean here? what does witnessing that have to do with the company name?
 * Hmmm... the source material is as follows:
 * Mac's inspiration to help corporate management improve its performance stemmed from a series of frustrating experiences with inefficient and disorganized suppliers during his stint in the Army Ordinance Department during World War I"
 * CorporateM (Talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you can just write "He conceived the idea after witnessing..." -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 14:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor MOS-related: Avoid euphemisms like "passed away" and contractions. I'm seeing instances of "Mr", we only refer to people by their surname. Same goes with Tom Kearney and Marvin Bower. Once referred to, use only the surname for the rest of the article. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * McKinsey & Company and James McKinsey are both referred to as "McKinsey" for short, so I put Mr. to avoid any confusion between the two. CorporateM (Talk) 17:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, all good. Alternatively, instead of "Mr", you can use "James". Remove that euphemism "passed away". -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 14:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "...stock-based reimbursement to help internet startups", can something be linked here?
 * ✅ I didn't find an article on stock-based payment, but did wikilink stocks and startups CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "...for which integrity and client confidentiality are a major premise of its business". This one raised my eyebrows. I've checked the backing inline citations and one (Fortune) seems to support it. It says "that prides itself for" versus the current "are a major premise". I would suggest reword to " ...for the firm, since it prides itself for..."
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "...recruit clients through church, charitable foundations, board positions and other community involvements." you mean 'through' and 'from' here?
 * ✅ I really meant "through" but either phrasing would work CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "... In doing so, they spread McKinsey's values and culture to other organizations" better replace this with just "they influenced the other organizations".
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Influence->This section uses "many" and "some" a lot, such vague descriptions are usually not encouraged. But I see that you've actually given numbers later in some instances. Sometimes just removing those words (since they don't add much meaning) helps too. The first sentence ("Many of McKinsey's alumni..") can go. The rest you can cut the words itself or provide actual figures where you can.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Put quotations marks for the entire statement in "According to BusinessWeek, some observers", otherwise it looks like there's emphasis on "some observers".
 * ✅ How's this? CorporateM (Talk) 14:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to avoid redundancy, notice this "..some consultants "say the firm strayed from some of the ingrained values that have long guided the firm " as it increased in size." -> you can use 'it' here and it will get shortened. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I re-wrote it without a quote to take out the "some". Also, I find that in most cases quoting the source material tends to introduce editorialized language we would not otherwise use, which was the case here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * " and more than 80 percent of Fortune Magazine's Most Admired Companies list. " what is implied here? that it is in the list or the it serves those from the list?
 * It says "it serves... more than 80 percent" I didn't think it was confusing or ambiguous, but open to ideas. CorporateM (Talk) 14:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, a little. So if I understood correctly, is this fine? "it serves more than 80 percent of the world's largest organizations and more than 80 percent of Fortune Magazine's Most Admired Companies list" -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Oh I see what you mean now. I think it should be fixed now. 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ->Reception: This section talks about culture (which can be merged to that section itself) and the remaining single para is too small to stand on its own. Then perhaps that para could be moved to Consulting services? But doesn't the Consulting service also contain a sort-of Reception-like content? Can you think of a better way to arrange this? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What about merging it with the Culture sub-section? The Consulting section already has reception-type content in it, whereas this section is mostly about the response to their corporate culture. CorporateM (Talk)
 * That sounds good. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "has become the most widely used", this feels...incomplete. Widely used where? it would still sound too vague, can something more specific be used to elaborate this? The next two paras give a negative view of it, thus apparently contradicting this statement.
 * Hmm... The source literally says "the most  well-known  and  widely  used". I don't think the paragraphs should be negative per se, but trying to measure the cost of saving the environment is naturally an imperfect science in a controversial topic. CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I think it's fine. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Some colleges have a team of McKinsey consultants..." This is a weasel term but that is permitted if the source specifically says this. Is that the case here? Hopefully this is true for the other instances from the Influence section?
 * Which is the weasal word? "team"? It is supported by the source, but if I remember right, it was not the strongest source in the world and McKinsey contests the factual accuracy that there's an entire team for individual colleges (an exaggeration, in most cases it's one person). CorporateM (Talk) 16:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, vague terms like "some", "many", "few" etc. Understood now? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your recent change didn't help; I'm also a bit not sure how to solve this. Give me some time and I'll let you know here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, this is good. These are all minor issues anyway. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * " However, the work environment is demanding, involving extensive travel and long hours" Is this attributed to the same source from the previous sentence? Then mention that, I don't think such a subjective sentence can be written in the pedia's voice without exceptional backing.
 * ✅ Added attribution. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "that out of the first S&P 500 list from 1957" what is a S&P?
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Its three horizons became adopted widely, because it gave executives a practical and simple vocabulary for thinking about growth." Again, don't feel confident in stating this in the pedia's voice. Either attribute it to the author who said it or replace this full thing with just saying something like it was influential.
 * Ewww. Good point. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Better. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "It said "McKinsey was a major player in the efficiency boom in the 1920s,.. " very long quote, use Blockquote for it.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * wikilink Heinz, IBM and Hoover, barcod and AT&T.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 16:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "now the world's" Time-sensitve, replace with "as of x year"
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * " Enron was also a McKinsey client. McKinsey helped Enron shift from an oil and gas production company into an electric commodities trader, which led to significant growth in profits and revenues." For better flow, since this was in a previous section, no need to mention they were a client but say they followed principles from the 2001 article book “The War for Talent”. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mind doing it? I can imagine how that diff could really be fuel for the fire in the event of accusations of COI editing, which are probably inevitable due to some of the controversial aspects of the page. Editors with a COI are not suppose to edit boldly in controversial areas or areas that could be perceived as removing criticisms. CorporateM (Talk) 17:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it some other way, think it's better now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Finished checking the article, I would say besides these minor comments, which are all addressed, just the lead needs to be expanded. The two sections to cover are Consulting service and Consulting projects. See WP:LEADLENGTH and try to summarise and add 1-2 lines about each of them. Then this will be good to go. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..... I disagree that the Lead needs more from the Consulting services section. The first couple sentences of the Lead are already on this topic. Looking at the other one. CorporateM (Talk) 15:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true but I meant the Environmental subsection. Since this is too trivial, take it as just a suggestion. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added a summary of the notable works section. As for the environment section, I think a slight undue issue in the body of the article may exaggerate its significance. Probably not warranted in the lead. CorporateM (Talk) 18:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright then, this review is done. Good job, and good luck with your other noms. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)