| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CGI Inc. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Edits made by the below users were last checked for neutrality on 26-9-2017 by Athaenara. |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Advertising problem edit
As an example of the advertising problem, the word "solution" is a WP:BUZZWORD. Likewise, awards are only noteworthy with reliable, independent sources providing context. Grayfell (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- @ESofmind: Hello.
- As I said, "solution" was an example, but there are plenty of other issues here. From past experience, I know that it won't be productive for me to list just one more specifically, and if I had the time and inclination to list all of them I would've already fixed the article myself.
- Another larger issue is the excessive amount of promotional minutia, which needs to be trimmed and contextualized. While the changes you've made have been a positive step, they are just a relatively small step, and are insufficient. Citing press releases to include promotional details is using Wikipedia as a PR service, and is itself a misuse of Wikipedia.
- Since you are one of the editors who has added much of this material to begin with (here, as one example), I would also request that you review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are compensated for editing in any way, you must disclose this fact, per WP:PAID, to comply with Wikipedia's terms of service.
- Either way, my advice is to consider how this article would read to someone who is not part of the "consulting, systems integration, outsourcing, and solution" industry. Avoid business cliches and press releases and do not be afraid to trim filler.
- Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- Agree. It feels like the vast majority of the article is written by a PR department, but it doesn't come down to individual sentences. tedder (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
- I have replaced {{advert}} with {{UDP}}. This article was substantially edited by many UPE sockfarms. That includes 34,300 bytes of aggregate diff sizes by a major UPE company (related SPI, including ESofmind), as well as substantial edits from other UPE socks beyond that SPI. In any case, the content problems are still the same: the article is pile of PR talk. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'm coming here three years later, and it still reads like an advertisement.
- Example: "In 2011, CGI was one of many contractors involved in establishing a new federal health insurance marketplace, and HealthCare.gov was launched in 2013". True, but nothing about how that launch was a disaster. I don't know how much of the blame for that debacle belonged to CGI, it looks like there was plenty of blame to go around--at any rate, CGI lost the contract to Accenture a few years later, which also isn't mentioned here.
- There's lots more at the wikipedia article on healthcare.gov, in particular CGI's poor performance on a Massachusetts state website, which at least one report "characterized as a complete failure... The software created by CGI was of poor quality and unusable" (that from the wikipedia article) That may or may not be true, but it should at least be mentioned here. Instead we have (as you say) what appears to be an advertisement from CGI's PR department--still, years later. Mcswell (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. It feels like the vast majority of the article is written by a PR department, but it doesn't come down to individual sentences. tedder (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A bit of a mess edit
Goodness - this article is bit of a mess. I'll try to get some structure and de-advertisement in here in the coming days. Feel free to share any insights, where available. --Tec Tom (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Tec Tom, I just came across this page by chance and I hope you haven't forgotten about it. It looks...yikes. If you're taking suggestions, I think the first and easiest things to fix would be to delete the excessive lists of awards and products common to many company articles and to standardize the section formatting a little (such as removing that bizarre contents box in the "Products and services" section). Might do it myself, we'll see. Toadspike (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't get to spend as much time around here in recent months as I'm now traveling for work again and never got back to this. But it looks like you already did most of the heavy lifting anyways. Good work and thanks @Treetear:! I did some final minor adaptions and removed the banner according to the work that has now been done. Tec Tom (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)