User talk:Aflagg99/Sandbox - New Enterprise Services article
Company Structure
[edit]This section needs to be updated based on how it's organized within HP. As well as HP ES organizational structure. Look at IBM global services.
Some initial changes & questions
[edit]I tried tidying the top of the article a little.
- The first mentions of HP and EDS should really be wikified. Right now, a link to EDS would just bounce back to the same article, but this would no longer be the case after splitting the article. Conversely, I expect the future EDS article should have a prominent early link to HPES, too.
- Some of the lead section was really "history". I hived this off as a new (small) section. Maybe 95% of the history should go on the EDS article, but I think it's still worth having 3-4 sentences of history here. Any thoughts?
- Taking history out of the lead section enables the promotion of the "as of 2009..." which is more positive and of broader interest. So, the lead now says what HPES is, not what it was.
- In terms of locations, it's probably worth having a simple explanation that many/most sites are closely associated with specific clients. If HPES won a big contract with the Chinese government tomorrow, then HPES would swiftly find itself with several offices and thousands of employees in Beijing. And so on. I'm not sure about the best way to word this. Any suggestions? Maybe something along the lines of "Because HPES has teams supporting various organisations in different countries, it has offices..."
- Where can we get a good orgchart to use as a reference? I don't think it would be helpful to list every team or every contract, but it would be nice to cite a document that lists divisions.
- Ditto for the financials. I had a quick look on the HPES website but didn't see anything. Are financials reported as a separate section in broader HP reports? We wouldn't want to copy a huge amount into the article, but it would be good to get a couple of numbers and reference them. I prefer primary sources for this kind of detail, but if that's not possible there are certainly secondary sources.
- The markup (bold, underline &c) might get a bit tedious when there's a mixture of old and new content (and somebody will have to take the markup out when the articles go live). Would you mind if I skip the markup for some minor/obvious changes? You can still track & compare changes by looking at the page history.
- If you want to establish notability of an organisation in Wikipedia, you need reliable external sources. Anybody can set up a website and say "Rah, we're awesome, look at us" - that doesn't prove a thing. I think this article would really benefit from some articles/editorials from specialist IT news sources, some white papers from sources such as Gartner, and so on. Maybe even something written by a major client of HPES. Any suggestions?
Comments / criticisms / complaints? - bobrayner (talk) 17:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)