 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{Help me-helped}} on this page with {{Help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Good afternoon. I am working to ensure that all of the content on this page is neutral and referenced correctly. Would it be possible for someone to assist me with specific recommendations on how I can improve the content on this pages so that it is not deleted. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Colleen Strasser (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Colleen Strasser
- Let me go through the issues one by one:
- First off, are you associated with the firm? If so, Wikipedia's Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest say that you shouldn't be editing this article at all. BTW, that's why there's a
{{coi}}tag on the article. - None of the tags currently on the article refer to problems with neutrality, so I don't think that that's a current problem.
- Yes, it needs additional citations. While there's no hard-and-fast rule, one footnote per paragraph is a good rule of thumb. So, the History section would need a footnote, the practice groups section would need a footnote (or more), the Notable cases section would need two footnotes, and so on.
- The notability is only in question because of the lack of verifiable and reliable third party sources. Find some further citations for the article, and it won't have a problem with notability. If you can't find the citations, that means the firm may not be that notable.
- First off, are you associated with the firm? If so, Wikipedia's Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest say that you shouldn't be editing this article at all. BTW, that's why there's a
- Thanks for asking here! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)