Talk:Trimaran Capital Partners/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I normally do not criticise a recent GA review, because that is usually not helpful, but I will just simply say that I strongly disagree with this: ("Generally, never end a sentence without a reference."). That is not consistent with the 2nd paragraph in verifiability. WP:V Aaron north (talk) 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my review. The prose is decent and there's a good amount of interesting information, but this article has a lot of problems. I am skeptical that this article can be fixed in a week. Since the prose is good and the editors had to wait for a renomination after that last odd review I will place it on hold for now rather than failing it. If the article is significantly improved by the end of the weekend or if an editor says they can fix every issue in 7 days then I'll hold it a full week. Otherwise, I'll probably fail it Sunday night. Aaron north (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing this article today. Aaron north (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose was mostly good after a few minor corrections. This article also had a tendency to use unnecessary commas which are now cleaned up. There are a few issues related to 1a and 1b listed below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I am presuming no OR for the purpose of this review, but could not verify (see below on optional suggestions).
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Need more information on the current company structure and information (if any is available) on other key executives, but probably not much needed. Need to mention acquisition of El Pollo Loco.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the fair-use rationale for the CIBC World Markets logo. It may be fine to use it to identify that company, but the purpose of use written for that image in the Trimaran Capital Partners page says it is to identify Trimaran Capital Partners, which is clearly wrong. The purpose of use needs to be fixed, or the image needs to be removed.

The last paragraph in the lead is a problem, because the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, it cant have significant information not found in the article. I don't think it would be desirable to just put a copy in the article, rather if it were moved out of the lead, under the first paragraph in history (so following "... to create a new debt-focused business development company."), then that would be fine.

The article contains several cliches and idioms (part of the "words to watch" WP:WTW) that are not appropriate for an encylopedia entry. These are listed seperately below.

This portion of this sentence appears unnecessary (and causes the reader to jump forward and backward in time) because it is repeated and explained in detail later: (The 52 Argosy employees that CIBC acquired would constitute the core of what would become CIBC's High Yield Group and the CIBC Argosy Merchant Banking funds that were responsible for, among other things, the $2 billion windfall that CIBC would earn from its early investments in Global Crossing.) The bolded information should probably be cut, and just end the sentence at "... Banking funds."

In this sentence (Prior to that point, CIBC had never done a junk bond deal.) "had never done" seems a bit too informal.

Although I don't believe every single investment made by Trimaran has to be listed, I did notice that the article did not mention the acquisition of El Pollo Loco.

These next two points are sort of tied together. First, this sentence: (Trimaran Partners – Jay Bloom and Dean Kehler, co-founders and managing partners of the private equity firm, have reportedly struck out on a venture with the Nelson Peltz-led hedge fund Trian Partners, investing in distressed corporate bonds, bank loans and possible loan-to-own opportunities.) is massive and includes a dash and four commas. The first part of that sentence also contains redundant information, but it might have been placed there to explain that Bloom and Kehler did not leave the firm. Anyway, it should be broken up and/or re-worded somehow.

While reading that sentence in the prior point and the next sentence which again tries to assure the reader that Trimaran is not shutting down, it struck me that the book is sort of closed on Trimaran in this article after 2005. Not much seems to come up in the news lately, but I'd think that if the dates in the "Investments" section were changed to 2002-Present, it would very simply notify the reader that the firm has not closed. Also, we don't show anything about the current corporate structure. After History, we might need a new higher-level section to talk about the current structure and very briefly discuss the key executives if any information is available on them. (For example, I found this link: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=810907) With that addition, when you get to the spinoffs you just have to briefly mention that Bloom and Kehler are investing in a side-project because it will have already been established that Trimaran exists and those two still lead the company.

The link for the second paragraph in the "mistral equity partners spinout" section is dead, and I'm wondering if it still supported that paragraph. It was a 2007 story, is fundraising still "slated to start later this year?" I doubt it. Those three sentences may be outdated.

That sentence in the tiny "Miscellaneous" section is not relevant to this article.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this sentence, (The Argosy team had been involved in many of the most prominent high yield financings of the preceding two decades, for companies including RJR Nabisco, Beatrice Foods and Storer Communications.) without referring to the book I'll accept that the source supports it. However, the first part of the sentence is a rather strong claim. Other editors or reviewers might ask you to spell it out for them. This is not required because you do cite a source which I could have looked up if I wanted to verify, but it might improve the article if you include quotes or statistics which would verify to the reader that Argosy was involved in "many of the most prominent high yield financings of the preceding two decades". (claim repeated in the Acquisition by CIBC section)
Do you really need 4 sources for the investment in Fortunoff? 4 cite notes in the middle of a paragraph is a bit distracting.

Cliches and Idioms

The following (in bold) should be replaced with simple neutral language. Aaron north (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

( Trimaran was founded in 2000, effectively on the back of the success of the Global Crossing investment.)

(The investment banking operations of CIBC World Markets reached their peak in 1999 and 2000, when the bank cracked the top ten of U.S. issuers of high yield bonds and the top twenty in mergers and acquisitions advisory.)

(Trimaran plans to raise an interim $300 million to make deals happen while beating the bushes for money for the larger fund.) might need to re-write that whole section anyway, see above.

(Trimaran Partners – Jay Bloom and Dean Kehler, co-founders and managing partners of the private equity firm, have reportedly struck out on a venture with the Nelson Peltz-led hedge fund Trian Partners, investing in distressed corporate bonds, bank loans and possible loan-to-own opportunities.) Probably needs to be re-written anyway due to unrelated problems above, but "struck out" should not be retained. It is especially confusing here because it can mean either "failed" or "beginning".

(The jump back to corporate credit is not big leap for Bloom and Kehler.)