Talk:Fort Myer Construction

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

United States: District of Columbia

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Washington, D.C. portal This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia.

Section titles

@Bangabandhu: I think it's more appropriate to have this conversation here. At any rate, while I'm open to discussing alternative section titles, I will point out that WP:CRITS which you cited on my talk page is an essay, not a guideline, and I'm not sure I find it entirely persuasive in this context. While I can agree with it for sections on the critical receptions of books, etc. here we're talking about a section whose content is entirely about corrupt business practices. As such, I think that it's misleading to leave it as "Notable contracts", as there are no positive notable contracts to speak of. Perhaps a workable compromise would be to rewrite this section as a subsection of "Operations" (after all, contracts are part of their operations, right?), with a sub-heading along the lines of "Government bribery" or "Overbilling and bribery". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea behind avoiding controversy sections is that they encourage other editors to dig up more controversies to put in that section. And that it could put undue weight on the controversies. But I think your characterization of the section content and company's actions is fair. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and tone

Parts of this article read like an FMC press release. BHolmes555 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]