Talk:Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

message: ==Promotional tone and content==
I disagree with the reason given in removing the tags. The article still reads more like a promotional PR piece than like an encyclopedia article. It focuses on parading awards etc. instead of describing what the firm actually is and does. (One also wonders if besides all this praise heaped upon them, the company was ever subject to criticism?)
Some examples for non-ecyclopedic advertising language (see also WP:PEACOCK): "prestigious", "renowned".
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: I disagree with the reason given in removing the tags. The article still reads more like a promotional PR piece than like an encyclopedia article. It focuses on parading awards etc. instead of describing what the firm actually is and does. (One also wonders if besides all this praise heaped upon them, the company was ever subject to criticism?)
Some examples for non-ecyclopedic advertising language (see also WP:PEACOCK): "prestigious", "renowned".
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional tone and content

message: "Renowned" has been removed and replaced with "highly regarded." I have also removed uncited uses of "prestigious."
This article seems no more promotional than many other firms' entries (see entries for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; and others), yet it backs up all positive claims with citations to independent evaluations from Chambers and Partners, Vault, and IFLR. My recommendation would be to remove the NPOV tag, or else apply it to other firms' entries.
Regards, Lonestar1836 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of certain "peacock" terms 

message: I agree with Lonestar1836 that this article is no more promotional than any other article about a successful business.  His edits resolved what valid concerns there were.  It's not just "parading awards" but is listing some of the independent recognition the firm as received, which in my opinion is actually a must for articles like these to establish Wikipedia's requirement of notability.  (Not every law firm out there deserves an article, only those with this sort of outside notability do.)  Looking at the firm's website, it's easy to see that there could be about 1000 more awards in that list, so it doesn't seem excessive.  Unless you have more specific objections, I think the NPOV tag should be removed.--24.193.115.222 (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seems fine to me

message: There haven't been any more negative comments since my changes in November. I'm not sure what the protocol is on removing the neutrality tag at the top of the article, but I think it's time for it to happen.
Lonestar1836 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus?

message: The last objection to this page was made nearly seven months ago. If no one posts any more objections to the article's tone or content by March 1, 2010, I will remove the tag.
Lonestar1836 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Last Call

message: I'm going to remove this NPOV tag now.  Also note that no other law firm pages have similar tags, but they do have similar language.  See Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.
Terrio (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Done