This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
I've put together a one-paragraph stub on the McKinsey Quarterly here as a proposed alternative to the current article. The proposed version has an infobox, some copyediting, better formatting and is a bit more complete. Its primarily a janitorial/administrative-type improvements on non-controversial information, but in order to exercise caution regarding my conflict of interest, I'd like to ask a disinterested editor to take a look and move it into article-space if they feel it's an improvement. CorporateM (Talk) 23:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did you determine the numbers 695 and 220? I see that 837 libraries have it, but I did not see how to break down print from digital.--S Philbrick(Talk)22:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you use the infobox for journal? Rather than {{Infobox Magazine}}. I know this is a minor point, but I think of journals as implying peer review - I doubt that this qualifies. While you do not call it a journal, I fear some bot will add it to a category based on the infobox. --S Philbrick(Talk)22:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks fine to me. I missed the peer-review field, that satisfies me. I think the World Cat list might distinguish between the two types, but I didn't see an easy way to figure it out short of counting. Maybe DGG did that.
You suggested that the version be moved to article space. I think it would be better to copy the current version over the old one to preserve the history. Do you think I'm missing something? If not. I'll be happy to do it, and mention you in the edit summary. Is that OK?--S Philbrick(Talk)00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
A new source was recently published about the McKinsey Quarterly, mostly regarding the first issue, which seems un-interesting to cover in-depth from an encyclopedic perspective, but I did want to suggest adding the following item:
"The Quarterly was initially an internal document at McKinsey & Company shared with consultants and clients, until it was published more broadly in the 1990s.<Ref>{{cite news|title=Quarterly growth – McKinsey and the inflation of management ideas|first=Andrew|last=Hill|date=September 10, 2014|accessdate=September 18, 2014|newspaper=Financial Times}}</ref>"
I've verified the material (via Google News) and subsequently added the requested content to the article. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I assume there is no need for the draft, so I deleted it, let me know if that was not the right decision.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)