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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.
I have removed some content for reasons I specified in the edit summary. Since it has been reverted by an anonymous editor, I will explain in more detail my concerns with the material. I would ask anyone who wishes to add the content back into the article to try to address these concerns.
The information concerning Hogan Lovell's status as a "one of the most prestigious law firms in the world" is WP:PEA. Lovell's status as "top 10 firms in terms of brand strength by senior decision-makers in elite global companies" provides no context for what "brand strength" is, what a "decision-maker" is, and which "global companies" are being referred to. The conductor of the survey, Acritas, describes itself as "Acritas legal marketing site". The sourcing fails to meet the requirements of WP:3PARTY.
The list of offices is a simple Wikipedia:Copy-paste from a first-party source. To quote WP:NOT, "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." A list of locations copied directly from their website obviously is missing explanations from third-party sources.
I am reverting the reinsertion, but only because there was no explanation. Pleas discuss if you disagree.Forbes72 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)