Talk:Hill Dickinson

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hill Dickinson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merseyside C‑class Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I have added multiple references to the information included. This is an important national law firm which has a long history, is referenced elsewhere on wikipedia and certainly worthy of inclusion. Can I suggest that the list of issues can be reduced? Liverrich (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What possible encyclopaedic value is a mention of an offices canteen facilities? What is notable about them? noq (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The list of issues now seems out of date as the notability, references and NPV criticisms have been resolved. Any disagreement? 81.144.203.250 (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I see that noq has queried the NPV of this article. I freely admit to being an employee of the firm, but not from it's marketing team. To be fair, who else is going to research and prepare such entry? The firm is over 200 years old and has a rich history which is notable and worthy of consideration. Suggestions on the neutrality should be specifically highlighted here rather than applying a blanket banner. If there are specific concerns, they can be addressed to ensure that the entry is worthy and of sufficient quality. 81.144.203.250 (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that the potential 'conflict' has been declared, I have removed the COI. Please discuss here before reinstating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.203.250 (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the COI notice was added back at some point. However, I see not see anything in the article that requires this notice. The overall "feel" of the article is too positive and promotional, but this typical of most stub- and start-class company articles. Further, as said above, Suggestions on the neutrality should be specifically highlighted here rather than applying a blanket banner. If there are specific concerns, they can be addressed to ensure that the entry is worthy and of sufficient quality. Senator2029 ║ “Talk” 18:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Following the request at WikiProject Merseyside, I've assessed this article. And removed the reference to the cafe. I don't think this article is written from a neutral point of view (specifically WP:NOTSOAPBOX), but more obvious is the slant (in the awards, notables and mergers sections) toward recent events. One method to assign equal import to the 1810s as the 2000s would be to remove these sections. U+003F^? 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indented line Sections removed so I've removed the recentism flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.169.121 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hill Dickinson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090828222246/http://www.liverpoolcdp.com:80/ to http://www.liverpoolcdp.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]