Talk:Apollo Global Management/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead is somewhat short. When writing an apostrophe, use the ('), not (’). Done
   • Avoid repeating parts or the whole article name in subheadings; e.g. "Apollo in the 1990s" should be "1990s". Done
   • Also, avoid making one-sentence paragraphs.Done
   • Remeber the capitalization rules for section headers; if it is not a proper noun, only the frist letter is capitalized.Done
   • "Recently" cannot be used on Wikipedia, since it is very vauge, and one always risks that the article (for whatever reason) is not edited for a period of many years.Done
   • Could "Investment funds" be converted into a table (name, committments and year) for better readability?Done
   • Ideally, the "portfolio investments" section would be a table that included the company, industry, year of acquisition, purchase price and ownership stake. Of course, where information is lacking (typical purchase price), it could be left out.Done
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • All references should be within {{cite}} templates (e.g. {{cite web}}).
   • There are several paragraphs that are unreferenced; only obvious statements need not be referenced to meet GA criteria. If a reference is used to cite more than one paragraph, add it to the end of each. Use the syntax <ref name="pick_a_name"> ... </ref>, and then recall it with <ref name="pick_a_name" />.
   • Some of the refs are not from reliable sources; notably ref 3. The link seems to not work, though it is 502 and not 404 error. If not working within 24 hours, the link should be removed.Ref 3 appears working
   • Just because the source uses all-caps, does not mean you should. All-caps is a typographical choice (just like font or print size), and should therefore never be transcribed in a reference. Instead, use normal English capitalization rules.Done
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   What I am missing, is the section "operations" (or a similar name) that covers the 'now' of the operations. This that should be included are locations, employment size, etc. It need not be long, but right now it is totally missing. Note that it is not sufficient to include it in the lead, since the lead is to summarize the article, not introduce it.Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article is not illustrated. Be creative—images could include operations of investments, executive portraits, office locations etc. An unillustrated article cannot pass GA without an exceptional reason. Also, I notice the German article has a different logo than this one; which is correct?Done - German logo is incorrect (relates to Apollo affiliate)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. If all the matters in question are addressed, the article will pass. Until then, it is placed on hold. I am in particular concerned with the lack of referencing, and I expect all paragraphs to be referenced to pass. If no improvements are made for seven days, the article will be failed. Otherwise, the article covers the subject and company well. Do not hesitate if there are questions or comments. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

   This is looking very good. A few comments:

   • I felt I needed to change the lead somewhat, since it was still a bit short, and did not cover the whole article. I would still like to see some more of the history and the affiliate business mentioned. In my experience, the lead is one of the most difficult sections to write, so unless you already have, please take the time to look at WP:LEAD.
   • Never force the size of thumb images; this is so people with accessibility issues (modem bandwidth, bad eyesight etc) can force high/low image sizes.
   • I hope you know there are simpler ways of making tables; {|class=wikitable ... for instance. There is of course nothing wrong with what you are doing, it just requires a lot of code.
   • Use US$ and wikilink at first occation; since it is a US company, it is sufficient to just use $ afterwards (though not in "global" articles).
   • The referencing is very well covered, but I am concerned about the formatting. In particular, there are some refs that are only a title and a url. At mimimum, a reference must have author or work, and a title, in addition to either a url or a date (or of course, several of the mentioned). Also, online references should have |accessdate; this is so that in case the link goes down, a archive engine could be used to retreave it. In general, I would recommend using the {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates; this creates a consistent referencing layout on all article, and will do nice things like put The New York Times in italics. Also, use of the cite templates should also be less time-consuming. Of course, you are not required to use this.

   I am impressed with this article, though there are a few minor items left before it meets the GA critera.

In process

Thanks for the helpful checklist. I have already completed a number of the recommended changes and included checkmarks above. I am going through and identifying where existing references can be applied to additional text and where other good references exist. Key remaining items:

• Continue additional referencing
• Turn investment section into table

|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be ready for evaluation

Arsenikk, thanks for the very detailed review of the article. I have made very substantial addtional changes to the article (noted above). Some comments:

• I would prefer not to change the ref format into cite - if at some point someone (maybe even me) feels strongly enough I would be supportive. I have no problem with cite but the formate I have used for references is very consistent and includes the article name, link, publication and date. I have upgraded some legacy notes that did not originally conform to this standard. To help future users, I have included a comment about access date in the references section for future users, however I find Accessdate to be cumbersome in each citation, specifically for NYTimes articles which are permanent links. This topic is covered in WP:Citing sources. In the future I will definitely think about trying out cite again.
  • Truth is, it is an old habit of mine of GA reviews, because most people who do not use cite templates do it all wrong. You are free to not use it; however, books and newspapers should be in italics. Regarding accessdate, I had an experience with this the other day. I had been adding a lot of links to a government railway agency, which contained more or less static information on new projects, lines, stations etc. Then one day (Friday I think it was), this 'highly reliable' (it was in my opinion) site decided to move all their links, making all the old ones dead. This is why we use accessdate.
• I will defer to you on the thumbnails. My only rationale in forcing a size is to avoid problems with image sizes affecting the layout of the text. If you think it is right to leave out I can be swayed on this.

By the way, on the tables I have been working with this type of table formatting for going on 14 years and it is second nature to me. I personally find some of the wikitable syntax to be difficult to track. Maybe like the cite template, I will get into the habit but after all this time I am still inclined to use the traditional table coding.

• The wikitables was only a suggestion to make life easy. I find it simpler than html. If you prefer it your way, of course do it that way. PS, please use === for headers on GA review pages, since == breaks up the transcribing mechanism (that is why I have changed them).

Please let me know if you think there are any areas I have missed or you would suggest going back to make further improvements. Again, thanks for your help. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, I have now passed the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 07:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)