I have edit suggestions to improve the accuracy and balance of this page. I have a WP:COI as a consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by the subject of the article.
1. What I think should be changed:
Please rewrite the first sentence of the first paragraph of the Controversy section:
Change from:
The company came under fire for its role in the Manchester Arena bombing of May 2017 during which Storm failed to operate.
Change to:
As a subcontractor for the telecommunications company Vodafone, Content Guru was criticized for its role in communications failures immediately following the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.[1][2]
Why it should be changed:
The existing sentence is poorly worded and therefore misleading. Content Guru did not play a role in the bombing. It played a role in disaster response following the bombing. This is a critical distinction. I’ve also rewritten to provide essential details about the relationship between Content Guru and Vodafone.
2. What I think should be changed:
Please rewrite the second sentence of the first paragraph of the Controversy section:
Change from:
This resulted in those affected by the attack not being able to contact police or emergency services.[3][4]
Change to:
Content Guru supported Vodafone’s National Mutual Aid Telephony system. The system is supposed to provide the Casualty Bureau with a dedicated line to serve as a single point of contact for information about people involved in a major incident.[5] The system could not be activated, limiting call capacity for several hours, making it difficult for families to get information about the victims.[6]
Why it should be changed:
As written, the sentence gives the false impression that victims were unable to call for help. The dedicated line was established after the incident to give families a number to call for information about victims.
Source 30, The Register, states that the communication failures following the bombing “severely hampered the setting up the Casualty Bureau (CB). The CB is the single point of contact of receiving and distributing information about people believed to be involved in an incident and is set up by police local to an incident area. The failure meant that 0800 numbers that should have been provided for those caught up in the attack could not be issued.”
Source 31, iNews, describes the results of the failure: “What was the impact? Communications with families caught up in the attack were “badly affected”. The review said the local number not being available until 3am was “a cause of significant stress and upset on the night to families involved”. It adds: “A number were reduced to a frantic search around the hospitals of Greater Manchester to find out more.”
The suggested replacement accurately reflects the sources which report that as a result of the failure, a dedicated 0800-number for people seeking and providing information about victims was not established until several hours after the bombing.
3. What I think should be changed:
Please rewrite the second paragraph of the Controversy section:
Change from:
Vodafone had subcontracted its services out to Content Guru for providing the National Mutual Aid Telephony system. However, when they tried to use it they found an "inability to amend the recorded message and technical difficulties with the server. This suggests there was an inadequate level of knowledge or expertise within Vodafone or its sub-contractor Content Guru."[7] "It took until 0300 GMT on 23 May, four-and-a-half hours after the attack, which took place just after 2230 GMT on 22 May, before a restricted local telephone number was running."[8]
Change to:
A review by an independent panel following the attack[9] concluded the failure was “catastrophic,” and reported that a capacity issue on one server prevented updating the recorded message on a number that had previously been used for another incident.[10]
Why it should be changed:
Source 32 is a disaster review conducted by a panel. Per WP:PRIMARY “Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.” Since a secondary source - The Register - is also included in the paragraph, I have rewritten to reflect The Register’s reporting of the panel’s findings. I have moved the citation that links to the report into the first half of the first sentence where it can be used for the straightforward purpose of verifying the report’s existence and purpose.
4. What I think should be changed:
Please replace the third paragraph of the Controversy section:
Change from:
Vodafone and Content Guru continue their partnership, with Vodafone marketing Content Guru's product under the brand Vodafone Storm.[11]
Change to:
Vodafone apologized for the failure and said the system had undergone a major upgrade following the incident and is tested daily.[12]
Why it should be changed:
The sentence is evergreen giving no indication if the statement is true as of 2025. The ref list lists the date of the source as 2018 but is a deadlink. I could not find any secondary sourcing to verify this information. The suggested replacement adds previously missing information about Vodafone’s response to the failure.
5. What I think should be changed:
Please combine the sentences in items 1 - 3 into a single paragraph and move to become the sixth paragraph of the History section. Please delete the Controversy section.
As a subcontractor for the telecommunications company Vodafone, Content Guru was criticized for its role in communications failures immediately following the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.[13][14] Content Guru supported Vodafone’s National Mutual Aid Telephony system. The system is supposed to provide the Casualty Bureau with a dedicated line to serve as a single point of contact for information about people involved in a mass casualty incident.[15] The system could not be activated, limiting call capacity for several hours, making it difficult for families to get information about the victims.[16] A review by an independent panel following the attack[17] concluded the failure was “catastrophic,” and reported that a capacity issue on one server prevented updating the recorded message on a number that had previously been used for another incident.[18]
Why it should be changed:
Wikipedia discourages Controversy/Criticism sections WP:POVSTRUCTURE since they tend to result in one-sided criticism, though they are allowed if needed to achieve another objective, such as not overburdening the History section. In this case, a chronological accounting in History can cover the event without unduly interrupting the flow of the History section or removing the necessary information. Controversy sections are not supposed to be punishments to call out wrongdoing, but to serve a stylistic or informational purpose.
Thanks for reviewing. Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- A note for any other editors, I oppose the change in point 4 as it makes it could be construed as if Content Guru apologized for their actions, when there is no indication that they ever did. - Otherwise (Talk?) 02:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
"The Kerslake Report" (PDF). The Kerslake Report: An Independent Review into the Preparedness for, and Emergency Response to, the Manchester Arena Attack on 22nd May 2017: 140. 27 March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2024. "The Kerslake Report" (PDF). The Kerslake Report: An Independent Review into the Preparedness for, and Emergency Response to, the Manchester Arena Attack on 22nd May 2017: 140. 27 March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2024. "The Kerslake Report" (PDF). The Kerslake Report: An Independent Review into the Preparedness for, and Emergency Response to, the Manchester Arena Attack on 22nd May 2017: 140. 27 March 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2024.
