Wikipedia:Peer review/Morrison Hershfield/archive1

Morrison Hershfield
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this page passes the notability standards. It is the second article I have created on my own and would like to take all necessary steps to keep this article up. I am open to all feedback and suggestions.

Thanks, Joe Fielder (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: There are several references to third-party, independent reliable sources which cover the firm in a non-trivial way, so I think it meets the notability requirements. Thanks for your work on this and here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD - it should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, but seems not to have anything on the History, for example, nor does it even mention this is a Canadian firm. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - but the fact that it is an employee-owned company is only in the lead, and the 15 offices across North America are also only mentioned there, as far as I can tell.
 * Could years be added to the history section? When were these acquisitions? How much did they cost?
 * Notable projects are all since 1997, and Awards are all since 2005. Did the firm do nothing of note in its first 50 plus years? See WP:Recentism
 * As it currently stands, the article reads more like an advertisement or promtional piece for the firm than a neutral article. There is no criticism of the firm and no negative coverage. See WP:NPOV
 * I also note that all the images are from the firm itself and were uploaded by the main editor, which means there may be a conflict of interest here.
 * One way to avoid these last two issues is to incorporate more coverage from independent, reliable third-party sources, such as magazines, newspapers, trade journals and the like.
 * Much of the article is in bullet list form - if possible could these lists be converted to regular prose? It would flow better and be less choppy that way.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. BAE Systems and Elderly Instruments are FAs about businesses and may be useful model articles.
 * Article is pretty short, so there is not a lot more to say.