User talk:CorporateM/McKinsey

Current "Recruiting" section
Bower broke with then-common industry practice by hiring recent graduates from the best business schools rather than among experienced managers. Today the firm is among the top recruiters of graduates of the top-ranked business programs in the US and overseas, in addition to hiring a significant number of people with other advanced degrees in science, medicine, engineering and law. The firm is notable for the number of Rhodes Scholars, Marshall Scholars and Truman Scholars it is able to attract. McKinsey also hires undergraduates into business analyst positions.  All good stuff still included in the proposed draft with some copyediting, more detail, better sources, etc. 

McKinsey is the top employer for recent graduates from MIT, Harvard Business School, Oxford University's Saïd Business School, Stanford Graduate School of Business, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, The London School of Economics, and INSEAD. ''' A lot of primary sources here in order to add a long list of individual schools. Doesn't seem necessary. '''

McKinsey's recruiting process is notoriously demanding, typically taking candidates through problem solving tests followed by multiple rounds of case- and experience- based interviews. In August 2013, career review website Glassdoor ranked McKinsey number 1 in its "Top 25 Most Difficult Companies To Interview (2013)" list.  Good stuff included in the proposed draft 

The firm is organizationally divided into partners and non-partners. It is generally not possible to join the firm as a partner; instead, partners are promoted internally from the existing ranks of principals and associates. Unsourced 

According to the Firm's career website, "successful consultants who join McKinsey early in their career can expect election to principal (equivalent to partner) within five to seven years. ... There is no limit to the size of our partnership."  Promotional use of a primary source 

Successful partners are sometimes elected director (senior partner) after at least seven years as partner, though there are fast-rising exceptions: Daniel, Gupta, and  Kumar became directors approximately 10 years after joining the firm as associates. Unsourced 

Officially, "director" is the highest position (other than the rotating managing director) at McKinsey, though top directors are distinguished by reputation and influence. The firm's mandatory retirement age is 60, after which directors become "director emeritus." ''' This is a broken link and I can't find the source, however most of this is in the Structure section now. '''

As of September 2013, the firm receives 225,000 employment applications annually and about one percent—or 2,200—of these are successful. McKinsey has explained that it specifically targets the “insecure overachiever” when it recruits new talent. McDonald explained following the publication of his book on the company:

There are very few stars at McKinsey—those who need a personal limelight generally end up leaving. What remains is a group of highly talented people who choose to give up the possibility of mainstream renown that a CEO enjoys in exchange for the benefits that come from having McKinsey on their business card. ''' Included. '''

Current "Compensation" section
As a private firm, McKinsey is not required to disclose compensation figures. Unlike the financial services sector, consultants are not paid proportional to the business they bring in; top senior partners and the managing director have similar compensation. This was estimated to be $2–4 million in 1994 dollars ($3–5 million in 2009 dollars). ''' Unsourced. Or at least there is a source, but it doesn't actually say anything about McKinsey. '''

However, there are indications these numbers have increased ~40% in the subsequent 20 years.

For example, according to public tax records, the senior partner leading McKinsey's Norwegian office in 2011 earned 67 million NOK ($11.5 million USD). In 2003 this figure was 33 million NOK ($5.5 million USD) after-tax, implying pre-tax income of at least 51 million NOK ($8.5 million USD) at a Norwegian tax rate of at least 35%. Supported by a short blurb regarding an individual employee 

Other estimates similarly place the managing director's compensation between $5 and 10 million. McKinsey paid former managing director Rajat Gupta a retirement income of $6 million in the first year of retirement and $2.5 million a year for at least the next three years. ''' This is more appropriate for the page on Rajat Gupta, though I would question putting his estimated salary as a BLP issue, especially because the source says it is "as estimated by friends and former McKinsey employees" (gossip). '''

Junior directors were said to earn at least $1 million a year in 1994 dollars ($2 million in 2009 dollars).  This source does not even mention McKinsey 

There were over 400 directors at the Firm in 2009, up from 150 in 1994. ''' There are properly sourced growth numbers in the History section. Also, this citation has a hidden comment saying it does not actually support the article-text. '''

A 1993 Fortune profile says, "The Firm places itself above discussing money as a motivation, yet senior partners often earn as much, or more, than the CEOs they advise",  Included 

though over the last 15 years CEO compensation has increased disproportionately. ''' This is a good source I had not seen before, which I added to the proposed, but it doesn't actually support the current article-text. '''

Proposed "Recruiting and management" section
McKinsey & Company was the first management consultancy to hire fresh graduates instead of experienced business managers, when it started doing so in 1953. Many of its recruits are Baker Scholars, Rhodes scholars or White House Fellows. Less than half of the firm's recruits are from business majors, while others have advanced degrees in science, medicine, engineering or law. Some colleges have a team of McKinsey consultants assigned to cultivating relationships with upcoming graduates.

According to The Observer, McKinsey recruits fresh graduates and "imbues them with a religious conviction" in the firm, then culls through them with its "up-or-out" policy. The "up or out" policy, which was established in 1951, means that consultants that are not being promoted within the firm are asked to leave. About one-fifth of McKinsey's consultants depart under the up or out policy each year. McKinsey's practice of hiring fresh graduates and the "up-or-out" philosophy, were originally based on Marvin Bower's experiences at the law firm Jones Day in the 1930s, as well as the "Cravath system" used at the law firm Cravath, Swaine and Moore.

According to Financial Times journalist Duff McDonald, as of September 2013, the firm receives 225,000 employment applications annually and about one percent—or 2,200—of the applicants are hired. There is an ongoing debate within the firm on how fast it should grow.

According to a report by WetFeet, McKinsey "offers some of the best experience, opportunity and professional development in the industry" and it is prestigious to have McKinsey on a resume. However, the work environment is demanding, involves extensive travel and long hours. Consulting Magazine's 2007 list of "Best Consulting Firms to Work For" ranked McKinsey as number 3. New McKinsey recruits are paid $50 - $80 thousands a year and some senior partners earn more than one million dollars a year. A 1993 Fortune profile says, "The Firm places itself above discussing money as a motivation, yet senior partners often earn as much, or more, than the CEOs they advise."

Par. 1

 * Schaeper and Schaeper do not verify the current phrasing (ref 26).
 * ✅ I just took it out - not sure where I got that from. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I cannot verify 27, but the date verified by 28 is accurate; the sentence, however, hinges on 27.
 * ✅ From the source: "It was also the first firm to hire MBA graduates from the top business schools to staff its projects, rather than relying on older industry personnel" I added it as a quote parameter in the citation template. CorporateM (Talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Move the second instance of 26 to right behind "Rhodes scholars", since it does not verify the others ("planned to interview Marshall and Fulbright scholars").
 * I don't see where the Marshall and Truman scholars are verified in 29, though it does mention Baker scholars; 26 verifies neither.
 * ✅ Regarding the two bullet points above, this appears to be an error that was carried over from the original (current) version that I didn't catch. It is now fixed. CorporateM (Talk) 00:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't verify "half are from business majors" (30), but p. 38 is not available to me and that may be where it's at. I'll take it on good faith, but it needs to be rephrased: these are their own words, no?
 * ✅It's on page 7 (I added a page number). The source says "While McKinsey still draws more staff from top business schools than any other background, MBAs recently accounts for less than half of all hires."CorporateM (Talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Similar problem with 31, 26, 32--the degrees. 31 is unavailable, 26 does not seem to discuss advanced degrees hired by M, and I don't see it in 32, the New Yorker article, either.
 * Again, 31, can't verify, though I don't doubt it since it's suggested in the Rhodes Scholars book; shouldn't be too hard to verify online, though, right?
 * ✅ I couldn't find an online source, but I added a page number (158), where it says "Every top business school, for instance, has its own team of McKinsey consultants assigned to it." I should point out that book is written by a former McKinsey consultant which is a mixed blessing/curse from a source perspective, however I picked up the book because other sources referred to it in a way that suggested it was an authoritative account. I decided to tone down the "every top business school" as a result of that being a particularly bold claim that requires very strong sourcing to just "some schools". CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Par. 2

 * Can't verify 33 (and the one instance of a page number (208) must be incorrect); 34 verifies one-fifth "rank or yank", a very different tone from "up or out"--but it's talking about Skilling's tenure with Enron, not with M.
 * ✅ It looks like I accidentally put the wrong source here, but I also found a better source (Financial Times) that has a little more content about the up or out policy. CorporateM (Talk) 00:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 35 does not compute: the link goes to p. 48, but the superscript is 206. "Jones Day" is mentioned in the book (The World's Newest Profession), but on p. 19 and only in the context of an organizational model for banks, if I read that correctly; p. 206 is unavailable, though I see that it mentions "Marvin Bower looked to the structure by Paul Cravath at the elite New...", but that's all I can see.
 * It's right there on the bottom of page 206: “Bower had first encountered the “up-or-out system” when he was hired by the law firm of Jones Day in the 1930s. His first hand experience with the system inclined him to propose in 1944 that McKinsey & Company…" I just did a search for "McKinsey & Company" and it showed me the full page. CorporateM (Talk) 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Par. 3

 * 36 checks out, but needs context. "McKinsey's recruiting process has a reputation for being demanding: Glassdoor, in their annual report "Top 25 Most Difficult Companies to Interview", ranked it first three years in a row."
 * ✅ Actually I took it out. Per WP:ORGAWARDS I think the ranking needs a secondary source to be included and the fact that working at McKinsey is demanding is repetitive with what is already said in the next paragraph or so. CorporateM (Talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 16 checks out, but likewise needs context (whose numbers?): "...of the applicants are hired, according to Duff McDonald, financial journalist and author of The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business (Simon & Schuster, 2013)."
 * ✅ It says according to journalist Duff McDonald CorporateM (Talk) 23:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 37 does not verify an "ongoing debate within the firm", though it reads "Some insiders complained the Firm was yarding back on Grand Ideas" in the context of its "exponential growth"--but that's not the same.
 * The source does verify the statement. It says "for much of McKinsey’s modern history there was debate within the Firm, as it styles itself, over how fast to grow and how large a public presence to be." CorporateM (Talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 30 seems to check out but I can only see a fraction--but again, is it Wetfeet saying that, or are they citing/echoing M? I can't tell. In addition, note 30 needs to be moved back to the end of the Wetfeet sentence.
 * ✅ It is Wetfeet saying that - they do some very comprehensive reviews/guidebooks on employers. Probably one of the best sources I've seen for this kind of information. CorporateM (Talk) 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't verify 38. If you can find an online link that would be great--isn't USA Today available online? Can Consulting Magazine be cited directly?
 * Ok, so USA Today does not directly support any of the material in that sentence, but is used to supplement it because it says a lot of the same things (that it's grueling, but leads to opportunity). I can't find it online, but I can email you the full text if you like. CorporateM (Talk) 23:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Par. 4

 * 16 checks out--but the intro should say something like "According to Duff McDonald, ..."
 * ✅ It's a little awkward IMO "According to Duff McDonald, as of September 2013" - oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Par. 5

 * Can't see 38 and 39. I saw Schaeper and Schaeper saying 60,000, and another, the New Yorker ,saying 50,000 - 60,000 a year. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ New Yorker says 50-60, the Wall Street Journal says 70, and USA Today says 80 ("They're well-paid, starting at nearly $ 80,000 a year.") I just put 50-80. CorporateM (Talk) 23:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Misc
Do you think we should trim this part?
 * According to journalist Duff McDonald "There are very few stars at McKinsey—those who need a personal limelight generally end up leaving. What remains is a group of highly talented people who choose to give up the possibility of mainstream renown that a CEO enjoys in exchange for the benefits that come from having McKinsey on their business card."[16]

I think it is promotional commentary, but I only left it in because it was there already and has a strong source. CorporateM (Talk) 05:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Proposed Research & Publishing section
2. Where is footnote 2? I want to verify that very influential is supported.
 * On page 51 of The McKinsey Way about mid-way down it says "The firm produces a steady stream of books and articles, some of them very influential". I can produce a PDF copy of the page if needed. That book is a bit flowery, but then the claim is also supported by the descriptions of individual books that were influential. Up to you (I took it out for now) CorporateM (Talk) 14:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

3. The jump from sentence 1 and 2, both of which discussed publications to sentence 3 which talks about research, was jarring. Perhaps because I read two sentence about the research, when I started sentence 3 I expected it to end:

The firm spends $50-$100 million a year on publications.

When I realized it was changing subject, it was disconcerting. No proposed fix, but there should be a better transition


 * Hrm. It's not actually changing subject. The first intro sentence says studies (I'll change "studies" to "research" - maybe that will help) CorporateM (Talk) 14:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I struggled a bit with how to respond. I consider straight editing. I considered editing with strikeout and underline. I considered creating a new version. None sounded satisfactory, so I'll start by making some observations. Make sure to read through to points 7 and 8 before doign any edits.

1. First sentence McKinsey & Company consultants publish studies, books and articles in order to market their expertise.

That's their intention, but it presumes too much to assume everything in their publications constitutes expertise I would prefer :

McKinsey & Company consultants publish studies, books and articles for marketing purposes.

I considered simply placing a period after "article" but thought that was too abrupt.


 * ✅ I just took out any speculation about their motives entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 13:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

4. A nit. Footnote 5 refers to page 55–56. I saw nothing on page 55 related to the magazine; suggest the footnote be amended to list just page 56. 5. I would prefer to drop the word "regular" in : Many consultants are regular contributors to the Harvard Business Review. 6. More than 50 books... This statement turned me off. Perhaps a personal bias, but every puffed up resume ever written (including my own) includes has more than 25 years of experience..."' and has authored more than a dozen articles for professional journal...'' It belongs in a puff piece, We can do better.
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ CorporateM (Talk) 14:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked the source. It seems like the source's reason for including the information was to show how much the publishing has grown from 2 books over 2 decades to 50 books over 2 decades. I altered the text to reflect the source's intentions. Thoughts? I can also provide a PDF of the page as before. This one in particular might be worthwhile to look at the original source material.CorporateM (Talk) 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging the number, the phrasing grates on me.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean the words "more than"? We could change it to "about" (even though I think the source does say >. Alternatively I could just take it out (always an easy way to clear up any protests to the content). CorporateM (Talk) 18:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

7. The opening two sentences to the second paragraph really turned me off, and, in an interest to avoid conflict, almost convinced me to beg off from reviewing the proposal.

They read: One of the firm's first books was “Supplementing Successful Management” which was written by Marvin Bower in 1940. It described the firm's culture and practice and was distributed to clients.[8] This was followed by the newsletter “Top Management Notes” that was started later that year.

The first book is a 42 page puff piece, published internally and given away. It is barely mentioned anywhere. I worked for a consulting firm, and we did similar things. I worked on such publications. It was hard work, but the end goal was marketing. It is documented by a source whose status is unclear to me, but might be a work for hire.


 * ✅ I just trimmed it out. I typically cover the "first" or origins of something even if it wasn't that momentous. CorporateM (Talk) 14:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

8. I do agree that the third sentence about In Search of Excellence deserves inclusion, and I can justify an introductory sentence, to transition from in-house material to books that managed to sell in the marketplace. (I took a crack at crafting one, but failed).

Regarding In Search of Excellence, I read it years ago, and thought it deserved the kudos it received. However, someone did a follow-up study, noting that many of the firms profiled in that book didn't do so well in subsequent years. For balance, I think that book should be considered for inclusion. I don't at this moment recall whether it was a minor item, or a more substantial, item.


 * I think it is quite substantial. The book "The Witch Doctors: Making Sense of the Management Gurus" says on page 6 "Ever since In Search of Excellence, the guru industry has boomed" and later refers to it as one of McKinsey's "blockbusters". (the source means these things in a negative sort of sarcastic way, because it is largely critical of "management gurus" and management books) CorporateM (Talk) 14:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I made it a little shorter. How's that? CorporateM (Talk) 15:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my wording was poor. There is zero question that In Search of Excellence is substantial. However, a follow up study/article/book, whose name I cannot recall, traced the companies in the original book, and concluded they struggled, thus challenging the original book's thesis. It is this second item whose "stature" I do not recall, so I am not in a position to say whether it is so small as to deserve no inclusion, or substantial enough to merit inclusion. I'll see if I can find it.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well this is a tad embarrassing. I decided to track down my dim recollection, and didn't start with Wikipedia. However, please read In Search of Excellence. I don't think I actually read In Search of Stupidity, but I may have read the Fast Company article. We have to discuss how to incorporate this information.

It is interesting to follow up the 2001 Fast Company article which criticized Peters for dropping GE from the list. That advice looked bad in 2001, not so bad today.


 * This article, also by Fast Company sets an interesting tone. While noting the criticisms of the original book and implying they are valid, it still goes on to call it "the most influential management book not only in these last 30 years but perhaps--just perhaps--ever. "-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've stopped at this point for reactions. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) I'll read on.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC) 9. The War on Talent section is good, as it properly notes that McKinsey was the leader; kudos for including the excess. (Enron)

10. I also find the Creative Destruction paragraph fine. I think that Welch handled it badly (or perhaps his managers didn't quite get how to do it right) but that's am aside, and doesn't affect the prose.

I generally agree with the selection process - three of the four books I know of and agree they deserve highlighting. I'm not so familiar with The Alchemy of Growth but have no reason to question the inclusion.

I see a section on ACA issues. I'm not up for reviewing that now. If we can reach agreement on how to handle an Excellence critique, I'll be happy to include the section up to, but not including the ACA section.

As a small aside, I associate "loose-tight" with Liberation Management, a book I read quite a few years ago. I see it is one of the themes in Excellence, I hadn't remembered that. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Sphilbrick I'm not sure whether "loose-tight" was a major theme of the book, but it is something McKinsey is known for. To clarify, the ACA section is already in the current article under "Issues" (formerly this section was called "Criticisms"). My suggestion is that we move it here as part of an effort to eventually spread the "controversy" section throughout the article per WP:CRITICISM. No changes are proposed to the text in the draft (it was previously reviewed and probably doesn't need re-reviewing). Let me take a look at the Fast Company article and incorporate that. CorporateM (Talk) 18:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize the ACA material was already in there. I have no interest in reviewing ACA related material, but as long as I'm not taking responsibility for the content,a ad simply agreeing that publications related to ACA can be covered in a section on publication (works for me) then we just have to agree on a way to incorporate some acknowledgment of the shortcomings of Excellence, and I can make the edit.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  18:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Sphilbrick I was just reading the Fortune article and it seems to be pretty balanced, but the author is a management consultant, as oppose to part of Fortune's editorial staff. Probably not reliable enough for a bold claim like being the most influential management book of all time. I think we could probably find more reliable sources that say the same thing though. I'll poke around. CorporateM (Talk) 18:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Sphilbrick What do you think about this source? It has an entire chapter devoted to In Search of Excellence and has an academic tone. The author, David Guest, is a professor from King's College. It should provide a good neutral summary that would help establish what the most significant aspects are to include in a 1-paragraph summary. I noticed for example that the Wikipedia article In Search of Excellence uses this source regarding a claim that the book's data was all made up. Whether/how David Guest includes the information should offer good context on whether that is a legitimate issue, or just a publicity stunt. However, we would have to put this part on hold until I can obtain a copy of the book, scan the chapter, write a summary and provide a PDF copy of the source for you. CorporateM (Talk) 19:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The source looks very useful. My concern, in a COI sense, is that the book was, as Guest points out, a deliberately marketing plan of McKinsey. It achieved success, I'll wager beyond the wildest dreams of McKinsey, but to mention the positives, without noting that some serious people, Drucker for example, have criticisms, is not neutral, so I want to make sure the POVs are covered.


 * Regarding the data being made up, that's overblown. It isn't the case, if I understand correctly, that Peters "manufactured" data. That would be a major criticism, and deserve discussion. The issue, as I understand it, is that the authors purported to built a rigorously defined mathematical "sieve" to identify the top companies, while in fact, the process was a bit more informal. There's less scientific rigor to the selection process that some has suggested, but I'm not aware that any of the results were faked. (I wrote the preceding before reading the link you supposed, I don't think I need to change a word, except that it helps put Drucker's reservations in an interesting light. The article also shed some insights on the selection of the 8 themes, but that's small beer; in fact, Peters did the interviews, and distilled into 8 themes. That one step took less time than one might have guessed is a nit too small to mention.)


 * I don't think you should put this on hold. I think the excerpts I can see in the Guest book are sufficient. If you want to order it in case reading the whole thing puts a different complexion on things fine, but let's nail this part down now.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @User:Sphilbrick How's that? I'm not sure it's any more negative, but the source had relatively equal text to praise/criticism in dedicated sub-chapters. It also notes in the source that academics (the author is an academic) generally dislike management books like this, so in a perfect world we would probably need at least two really strong sources (an academic and a business source). However, this is probably good enough for GA. CorporateM (Talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks great. Sort of an aside, I just read the Forbes ten year retrospective, turned out better than I remembered, This is important only in the fact that had the ten year analysis of the companies under performed the market, it would have been appropriate to be a tad more negative, but that wasn't the conclusion so the summary looks fine.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  22:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Works
Successes and failures listed by Fortune
 * Hewlett-Packard - There's some information looks here but not enough source material to establish historical significance
 * Johnson & Johnson
 * PepsiCo
 * BritishAir
 * AT&T
 * GE
 * American Express
 * GM
 * IBM
 * Eastman Kodak
 * Digital Equipment
 * Sears
 * Pan Am

Comments on Infobox

 * Seriously need to find an alternative term for "spiritual founder". It makes it sound kind of... scientology-ish. I understand Bower's role from the short blurb in the lede but I can't come up with something less suggestive. Or I don't know, maybe that's a term they use? § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ @user:FreeRangeFrog, how's that? My other thought is if that adds too much text/explanation for the infobox, we could move the text from parentheses to a footnote. CorporateM (Talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't get back to this. Actually I did finish comparing the live version and the draft, and at this point I have no problem with what you have. I wholly agree with your trimming of the Galeon section, which is what I ultimately wanted to examine more closely. I am concerned with the editors that seem to be married with the "controversy" material. Or maybe it's my perception of the editing history. I'm not sure how to proceed - can we maybe ask for comments from watchers of the article? Honestly I have no issue with a straight paste of your draft, but I don't want to get into a fight over it either. Thoughts? § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yah, let me post it on Talk and see if we get comments. I don't know if I would put it like that. user:My2011 has a strong interest in the Galleon/Gupta topic. Editors with such an intense interest in a topic are foundational to Wikipedia, but the best articles are formed when editors with different motives and interests, diverse views, and ranging research focuses collaborate together in good-faith, as My2011 and I have done in the past. He/she may revert or discuss, but I don't see any indication to expect some kind of contentious situation.


 * He/she has more expertise on the topic than us two combined and if all my suggested edits were implemented except say half my trims to that section, it would still be good enough to be GAN-ready and fall under WP:COIMICRO. Anyways, off to Talk! CorporateM (Talk) 03:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)