This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the aggrandizing aspects of the page have been removed. I submitted this page a few months back with more flourish and detail, and it was taken down for being too promotional. Though I did not create that version of the page with intent to promote the firm, I can't deny it came across as such. This version removes all the unnecessary flourish. It just says what the firm is, how it came to be, and why it is notable (as a defense to any potential challenge to notability). The only thing on the page that might suggest promotion is the phrase "precedent-setting" which I will admit does sound somewhat aggrandizing, but I struggle to find a more neutral term for a case that has had an impact on the law ("cases which have influenced state law"?). I am not in the employ of the law firm (my ailing bank account can attest to that), I am just a law student in the broader region who is a fan of Joe Waldo's work with no intent or desire to work at his firm after graduating (the practice is too limited, it would get boring). To suggest that admiration for the subject matter constitutes a conflict of interest would result in taking down most pages on the website.
The firm is worthy of a page because of its reach and influence in Virginia and surrounding states despite being small and relatively young. What do you need to see or not see in order for you to give it the thumbs up? User:WBNewman1
I want to get this page up to snuff so that I can remove the banner questioning the topic's notability so that I don't have to worry about it being taken down again. Since a previous incarnation of the page was taken down for sounding promotional, I was wondering what more I can add. I plan to put a bit more on history, but the firm is 22 years old, so doesn't have a century of name changes to list like other Virginia firms with articles on this site. If you look at the pages for Oblon and Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, they are uncontested and talk about individual attorneys' successes and things like the firm's blog. Are these fair game for my page? I don't really want to add things in that nature because they ring of promotion, but if it will help the notability, I'll put these things up for this firm to the extent the Owners Counsel and eminent domain blogs talk about them. -- WBNewman1 ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice start. Could really use more content. They have a newsworthy specialty and a lot of material in the sources to build from..
North8000 ( talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because the aggrandizing aspects of the page have been removed. I submitted this page a few months back with more flourish and detail, and it was taken down for being too promotional. Though I did not create that version of the page with intent to promote the firm, I can't deny it came across as such. This version removes all the unnecessary flourish. It just says what the firm is, how it came to be, and why it is notable (as a defense to any potential challenge to notability). The only thing on the page that might suggest promotion is the phrase "precedent-setting" which I will admit does sound somewhat aggrandizing, but I struggle to find a more neutral term for a case that has had an impact on the law ("cases which have influenced state law"?). I am not in the employ of the law firm (my ailing bank account can attest to that), I am just a law student in the broader region who is a fan of Joe Waldo's work with no intent or desire to work at his firm after graduating (the practice is too limited, it would get boring). To suggest that admiration for the subject matter constitutes a conflict of interest would result in taking down most pages on the website.
The firm is worthy of a page because of its reach and influence in Virginia and surrounding states despite being small and relatively young. What do you need to see or not see in order for you to give it the thumbs up? User:WBNewman1
I want to get this page up to snuff so that I can remove the banner questioning the topic's notability so that I don't have to worry about it being taken down again. Since a previous incarnation of the page was taken down for sounding promotional, I was wondering what more I can add. I plan to put a bit more on history, but the firm is 22 years old, so doesn't have a century of name changes to list like other Virginia firms with articles on this site. If you look at the pages for Oblon and Allen, Allen, Allen & Allen, they are uncontested and talk about individual attorneys' successes and things like the firm's blog. Are these fair game for my page? I don't really want to add things in that nature because they ring of promotion, but if it will help the notability, I'll put these things up for this firm to the extent the Owners Counsel and eminent domain blogs talk about them. -- WBNewman1 ( talk) 18:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice start. Could really use more content. They have a newsworthy specialty and a lot of material in the sources to build from..
North8000 ( talk) 12:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)