Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Serious WP:NPOV Issues[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This entire article reads like a publicity puff from the company's PR agency. There is no mention of the huge controversy that followed the activities of the Nudge Unit while part of the UK Cabinet Office; while the list of their activities seems to have been carefully considered to not quote those that were considered ethically questionable, such as attempts to make benefits sanctions more effective, and to embed the Department of Work and Pensions within the doctor-patient relationship, going so far as to attempt to gain the right for non-medically qualified DWP contractors to edit medical records. Clearly WP:NPOV applies.

I've added sections, with references, covering those two areas of work, however as a disabled activist my own NPOV is doubtful, so I've held back from adding a Controversies section. The whole article needs attention from a neutral editor.

82.24.113.243 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article reads in a promotional style which I believe will benefit from adding an Objectives section and updating the International Adoption section with updated international involvement. A record of their activities and potential controversies could definitely be presented in a neutral manner and added into the article. Moojimooj (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 18 2023: the point expressed by this editor 5 years ago still stands. 151.65.49.40 (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]