mysideae asked me to comment here in my volunteer capacity i do not know anything about this topic but looking at the criticism section of the current article it appears to all be reflective of specific time periods and therefore belongs in the history section a dedicated criticism section is not a neutral title and draws undue attention to the criticisms though you could also look at it the other way that they are buried at the bottom and belong near the top as for the draft i see there are some nice plugs for moodys that are especially heavily cited and have substantial weight well i wrote the article on history of public relations and it mentions some pr agencies that played a role in its history so this is not unprecedented however i am concerned about the weight of this material and whether it is fair to other agencies i think the draft is valuable enough as a starting point for it to be worth our attention but i would suggest an editor do some light research independently trim copyedit and re write it and mix it with the current criticisms section into a more balanced history talk