|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Accenture article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A Wikipedia contributor, ChrisPond (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
I am pretty sure someone will delete this as a "subsidiary without an article"
my gut feeling is that nobody who has influence over this article will accept this unless there is an article about this entity. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Some additional updates to this article
Hello, I'm back again with a few more suggestions for this page. As discussed above, I'm working here on behalf of Accenture, and so have a financial COI. I thus won't make any direct edits to the article.
- First, the net revenue figure has, once again, been changed to the wrong figure, despite the source used having the correct figure of $28.6 billion. Can someone please change this figure back to the correct amount?
- Related, given the constant changes to this figure, I'm wondering what editors would think about semi-protecting this page for a bit, in the hopes that the edit will stick a become a bit more evergreen so we don't have to keep revisiting it?
- Second, there were recently two links added to the External links section ("Accenture's Customer List" & "Accenture's Partner List") to Spiderbook, a commercial website for finding connections at possible client's companies; this doesn't seem appropriate to be linked here, so I'd like to ask that these links be removed.
- Finally, Accenture recently changed the name of it's Business Process Outsourcing unit; it's now called simply "Accenture Operations". However, there isn't a third-party source that discusses this. Their website has been updated, though, and from the language therein (and the URL), you can see that Operations has supplanted the BPO language. The name change is also discussed in this blog post. I realize this isn't great in terms of sourcing, but if an editor is willing to make this change under the Growth platforms section so that the page is accurate, I'd appreciate it.
- Done. Silver seren took care of numbers 1 and 2 by restoring an earlier version. The revenue figure has been fixed and those inappropriate external links have been removed. I had a look at number 3 (including the links you posted). While there isn't a specific third-party source, the claim itself is not a controversial one - it's just the name of a functional division. My personal view is that a primary source would be acceptable for that particular undisputed fact anyway. If someone has a significant objection then we can revisit it. Stalwart111 22:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide a full financial statement source in order to support the information provided in financial figures. I just don't understand why one source for revenue while another source for other figures. It would better to provide one common source. See other articles like Microsoft, Google or GE.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 23:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your efforts so far have been to blindly edit-war things into the article without discussing them here and your first contribution to the talk page is to question why something that has been explained several times has been done a particular way? Maybe start by having a read of what has been discussed previously - I think you'll very quickly have an answer to your question. Stalwart111 04:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with Stalwart on this. I understand and acknowledge your point, ♥ Kkm010 ♥. It would be best to have a full financial statement source, however, we have been doing thing this way for awhile. Accenture is a huge messy multinational, and unless I were doing financial statements analysis for an employer (e.g. as due diligence for M&A, debt rating or securities issuance) there's no way I'm doing that here. Also, that isn't what Wikipedia is for, regardless. We only update about 5 financial data points in this article, so referencing a full financial statement is overkill. Keep in mind that we are providing what iis of most interest on this article based on feedback, and that numerous editors have settled into a routine of updates, despite some (like myself) being strongly opposed to paid editing. Chris Pond is scrupulous, Stalwart and I implement or push back as needed, various others with greater authority (or age, or experience, or low tolerance for nonsense) intercede periodically. It works. Stalwart made a good suggestion to you.--FeralOink (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
ChrisPond, I meant to ask you a question. Should we continue to have Accenture listed as part of Wikiproject Chicago at all? I think it was discussed before. Accenture could be in a lot of other better suited WikiProjects than Chicago, or just one fewer than it is part of currently would be okay!
Second point, yes, thank you for asking that those Spiderbook URLs be removed. They were totally inappropriate/ spammy.--FeralOink (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- made the following changes--added criticism section and included obama care in Honour's list. Rim sim (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've undone one of the additions and amended the other. The awarding of a contract (and a fairly minor one in the context of the company) is not an "award" that would fit into that section. The other addition included a word-for-word block quote (uncredited) lifted from the source article. I've left the note itself but I've removed the uncredited quote. St★lwart111 14:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Help with a few updates?
Hi there. As ChrisPond has in past, I am working as a consultant to Accenture to help them improve this article. After reviewing the content, I have several updates to suggest. Many of these changes are simply maintenance and do not significantly alter the content of the article. However, because of my financial COI, I will not be making any updates myself and instead ask other editors to review my proposed material carefully.
Firstly, I'd like to propose updating the number of clients in the Fortune Global 100 that appears in the intro. The most current figure is 89 and can be sourced to this Chicago Tribune article.
Secondly, the Growth Platforms section may also be updated. There have been some changes to both Accenture's Technology and Operations growth platforms and as a result, the language about them can be revised to better reflect what each is responsible for. This article describes the realignment of Technology under new leadership and the broadening of Operations to include infrastructure and cloud services. The new language and sourcing I'm proposing are below:
In addition, there are now 2014 rankings available to update several of the items in the Awards and Honors section. These updates are below and include the first five bullets currently in the section. I have not added any new awards, just corrected the ones already listed to represent the most current standings and recent sourcing.
Finally, I'd like to suggest removing two sections:
- The Workforces subsection is outdated and lacks sourcing. The company eliminated its workforces in September 2014 and they were not replaced with a comparative structure.
- The Notable Recent Projects section is also outdated and, due to the nature of using the word “recent” in the heading, would need frequent updates to stay current. Not to mention, having a section like this invites edits adding information that's not necessarily encyclopedic. I'd like to suggest removing it and placing future noteworthy projects in the ‘’History’’ section instead, which is more typical for company articles than a section like this that collects "recent" work.
Thanks in advance for reviewing these requests and please do let me know if there are any questions or feedback on the above. If these changes seems appropriate, I'd appreciate if another editor could make them in the article. Thanks. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging this page again to see if any editors who watch this article can help with the above request. Also, the details of the company's headquarters in the infobox is incorrect: Accenture is not headquartered in San Francisco. There's no citation given, so can this be removed? Technically, the company doesn't have an official headquarters, although it is incorporated in Ireland, so saying "incorporated headquarters are in Dublin, Republic of Ireland" in the introduction wouldn't be entirely wrong. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi 16912 Rhiannon, sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this before today. I was able to have a quick look a couple of days ago but there were some concerns and I didn't want to address them inadequately. The first item I've addressed and have made that change with that reference. The last (in the comment preceding this one) has also been addressed in the infobox and in the lede.
- The first of the proposed changes (the larger two) has a few problems. The two aren't particularly strong - one is an "anonymous" article which would seem to be a copy-paste of a company press release and the other is a release of information from the company. The language they are proposed to support is a little flowery. Nothing too problematic but those two citations alone are probably not strong enough to justify it. Probably just a matter of toning down the language a little and finding some alternate sources. #1 probably isn't of much value and #2 is a primary source.
- The second change is fine. I might do that in one hit once we get the first one sorted.
- I agree with the last two items. "Notable" means something specific around here and none of those projects are "notable". That said, they might be "significant" to the company. But we probably need a list of actually significant projects and not just the recent ones. I'll get rid of the workforces section now.
- Happy to discuss anything in more detail if we need to. St★lwart111 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Stalwart111, thanks so much for taking a look at these for me and making those first few edits. I'm looking again into sourcing for the Technology and Operations information and I'll work on adjusted wording for that, too. Once I have that, I'll ping you here to check it out. In the meantime, I wanted to ask what you think the best course of action is for the Notable Recent Projects section? Are you ok with deleting that entirely or do you think the listed projects should be incorporated into the History section? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that section has two problems - the "notable" part and the "recent" part. "Notable" means something specific here and while readers might not understand that, its strange to include a list of "notable" projects when none of them are actually notable (with articles of their own). In that sense, they should be projects that are significant (to a broader audience than just the company) or significant to the company's history (projects that led to considerable growth or the opening of a new regional office or something along those lines). In that sense, we're looking for projects significant to the company's history and so including them in the history section makes sense. But we need to decide, first, which projects should be included. The "recent" part is a problem also - why only the "recent" projects? That doesn't really make sense. St★lwart111 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Stalwart111: many apologies for taking so long to come back to you on this. I've been working with the Accenture folks to see if there was any additional sourcing for the Technology bullet point, however, I've been unable to find any really strong sources. The best I have is an All Things D piece which mentions the research and development arm of the Technology growth platform. However, since the existing language in the article is so "flowery" (to borrow a term from your earlier reply), and not fully supported by the existing source, so I'm loath to say it's fine to leave it as is. What do you think to using the company's website plus the All Things D article, and amending the wording to make it less jargony?
For the Operations bullet, there's just a little bit of industry-speak that's necessary (BPO -- happily there is a Wikipedia article for this, so it isn't left to readers to work it out), but otherwise, I have pared it down significantly and found another, stronger source. What do you think about the below updated wording?
If this language works for you, would you be able to add it into the article in place of the current bullet points? Also, I think you were coming down in favor of moving the Notable Recent Projects into the History. All three of the projects mentioned garnered media attention, and I think are high profile enough to be included in the company's History. The US-VISIT information doesn't currently have a source, but this Washington Post article can be used to support the first two sentences. Let me know what you think! Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not the only person who can help with this so my opinion shouldn't be seen as carrying any more weight than anyone else's, but I still have concerns about those sources. They are still better than what is there at the moment so I would be happy to make those changes, but it would be good to get better ones if we can (and I will wait to see if that is possible). The "Lauchlan source" isn't really a "Lauchlan source" at all - it is large blocks of a statement from Nanterme interspersed with single lines from Lauchlan. That's not a problem, really, as Nanterme is a reliable source for information about his own company's operations. But it certainly isn't an "independent source" so a more independent source would be better. Analysis by someone of that statement, for example, would be a better option. Thoughts? St★lwart111 05:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Stalwart111: I certainly agree that fully independent sources providing their own analysis of Accenture's operations would be ideal, however I have been unable to locate any recent ones clearly discussing either the Technology or Operations growth platforms. Given that the existing language for both is quite promotional and either unsourced, or the citation used is an Accenture source that doesn't actually support the information given, I do feel like the alternative language and sources I've provided are an improvement. In both cases, the wording is much more straightforward in its explanation of what those growth platforms do, more in line with what's appropriate for a primary source (or secondary source quoting a primary one) to support. Given all this, do you feel it's reasonable to go ahead with the changes? If you'd rather leave these two items and look at the other changes (the Notable Recent Projects section, and updating the awards information), I would absolutely understand. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)