Wikipedia:Peer review/Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman/archive1

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I would like some objective feedback about the current state of the article; comments on its format and/or neutrality are welcomed. Any suggestions for improvements would also be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lede is almost promotional. It's not lede-relevant to list each and every city where the firm has offices; it's something that belongs in a later section. I would argue the best structure for the first lede sentence is "Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman is an American (or New York) law firm founded in 1993." A list of prominent clients is also not relevant for the lede and gives the impression of being advertising copy.

Why is the history broken up into subsections in such an odd way? What's so different about the firm prior to 2008 when compared with the history since? There should be some clear reason for that sectioning other than convenience.

"In December the firm was defrauded by a private investigator whom they had paid $6,000." This sentence is not neutrally worded and makes a serious criminal accusation. While I see from the sources that it evidently resulted in an indictment if not conviction, it should be phrased to address this.

More to the point, a lot of these historical things are little tidbits strung together. I've had that problem before when writing articles about businesses... it's hard to get past that with articles about companies, and I'm really not sure how to approach it. I think a lot of these detail items, like the hiring of Marcos Daniel Jimenez or the lawsuit of Missy Lapine, ought to be cut entirely. I mean, the motion in the Fairfax lawsuit... while serious in the lawsuit is unbelievably minor in the history of a major litigation firm.

When writing an article like this, I think the goal should be, much like with making an opening statement, to present a coherent story that the factfinder can follow, where factual tidbits flow from one to another (and unlike a closing argument, not drawing conclusions, which would be OR). Give the facts that the sources do, but in a way that a factfinder can connect understand why you juxtaposed them. For instance, why talk about Joe Liebmann, then talk about the Above the Law fake offer story, then talk about layoffs, then talk about the firm being ranked as large? I get it's chronological, but there's no connection other than it all being roughly about the same law firm.

The citations should be revamped. Try using standard citation templates, and where (for instance) you lack an author, just leave the field blank. "Unknown author" is not so great, and your newspaper citations (e.g., NYLJ) should have date information.

That's about all I have. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)