Talk:Publicis Sapient/Archives/2011

Comment

This page reads like a company biography or a press release. Particularly this picture.

+ I tend to disagree with the implied statement above that says this article must be biased because of the two factors listed. While the article does read like a company biography (not surprising considering it is a partially historical article about the company), and it does include some company press releases at the bottom, this does not make it a biased article. The article is in keeping with the standard encyclopedia format. - Netguy1776

- I agree with Netguy1776. I am going to remove the disputed neutrality tag unless the first person can at least make a recommendation for fixing the article.

The article contains scores of unsourced claims. Each one needs to be backed by a reference. The opening sentence reads like the company motto, but doesn't really state what Sapient is. Much of the article is written using weasel words. The History and Services sections aren't too bad, but need editing to fix the tone and to verify the claims. The Culture section should probably be removed (it reads like a recruiting ad), unless Sapient's culture has actually received press coverage (can't tell without references). Each client listed in Samples of Clients needs a reference, as does each award listed in Honors and Awards. The Recent Developments section reads like a company web page, and doesn't appear to be encyclopedic at all. Stick to the facts -- i.e., claims you can back up with a reference. Julesd 14:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

+ There appears to be a factual inconsistency. Current Wikipedia page states founding date as 1990 but as of today (Aug 7, 2011), the Sapient website directors page refers to founding date as 1991 (http://www.sapient.com/en-us/about-sapient/leadership/board-of-directors.html).

make it encyclopedic, not advertisopedic

Have the respective clients approved the use of their names as sapient clients. You can infringe on the confidentiality rights with the cutomers. Please check. Use of words as innovative, industry leader etc. are subjective words not having objective facts. Please refer to other companies page in the wikipedia on how this page can be structured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girish cs (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this, a company brochure?

I used to work for Sapient and have very fond memories of my time there, but this article makes me sick - it is replete with boastful and vague PR schlock. So many peacock words... this needs to be toned WAY down, and almost every statement in this article needs to be sourced. There is no mention of anything remotely negative (I added a sentence about the extensive layoffs in 2001-2002), at least not without spin. I am planning to give this article some attention to strip out the bias without removing any factual content, and requesting sources on statements that need them. Not a vendetta against this company, just an attempt to make this article encyclopedic and compliant with WP:NPOV. Steve Carlson^Talk 04:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sapient Logo.gif

Image:Sapient Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to remove puffery, advertising tone

In the past few days several editors, who came here from Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Company_entry_marked_as_advertising, have made several good faith and - in my view - sound edits to remove the abundant self-promotional language, and Sapient website references, from this article. Editors who think those reductions went too far are welcome to discuss them here but please do not revert them wholesale. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to start the discussion by describing a few of my concerns with the version that I just undid. For example. I don't think the article benefits from a laundry list of 25 (!) specific Sapient clients. Similarly, the listing of each of the firm's offices, by name, also carries a marketing, rather than encyclopedic, tone. Also, a single external link to the firm's website shouldn't sufficient; there needn't be four.

Though it now occurs to me, if I can identify my concerns with that version I can just as easily restore that one and then fix them, and so I shall. Anyone with concerns about my efforts, please discuss them here. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

All right. Here is the diff showing the changes I made to the version that was restored by User:KuwarOnline, a version appeared to predate the most recent spate of COI edits (but which still needed a bit of paring). The advertising and COI templates have fallen out; I'll leave it to others whether those still need to be restored. JohnInDC (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)