Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by AOL
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 23:18, 14 May 2008.
Nominating for WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you write a bigger lead? Doesn't seem like enough prose for an article its size. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded on the largest acquisitions that AOL has made. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, the lead looks better, but I have a few more comments. There needs to be non-breaking spaces after all numbers. Also, could you create stubs for the redlink company names in the chart? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which numbers are you referring to? I think I've got on all the ones that need it, but I might have missed one. Red links should be gone in about 10 minutes. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The numbers in the lead. Just use   with a semi-colon, right after all numbers. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all numbers need a non-breaking space after them; only the ones that are connected, like $1 billion needs one otherwise the $1 is out of place if the billion is on another line. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Computer resolutions are different, however, so even if on your computer it's on a different line, preferably you should still add them. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Please list your Support for the list if you think it should be promoted. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure I could find other minor stuff, but for the most part it looks good. Support Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Please list your Support for the list if you think it should be promoted. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Computer resolutions are different, however, so even if on your computer it's on a different line, preferably you should still add them. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per my previous concerns, a number of the acquisitions actually redirect to something different. If they're notable enough to be considered part of the list then they should have their own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up question: Are all acquisitions in the list, or only notable companies? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All. Gary King (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up question: Are all acquisitions in the list, or only notable companies? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think there needs to be some consistency in the portion of the acquisition list leads as to where and how we see the information about what is contained in the list, which foms most of the first lead paragraph on this one. In some of the acquisition lists, it's at te end of the lead, in some it's at the beginning, in some it isn't there at all. Also, Ubique shows up on the list as being USA in the country category, but the article says it was founded and is based in Israel. Similar problem with AdTech, which the article says is based in Germany. Marrio (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Also, the leads were once all very similar, but in their respective FLCs requests popped up that wanted them changed, so that's where we are at now. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's a problem of the system, I guess, since we review lists on their individual merits and not by style of list. Not your fault as author.
- Support - Marrio (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I was going to support, but I noticed that several of the companies value columns were empty. Is this because you couldn't find the amount or because it was never disclosed? If the latter is the case, maybe you should put a key at the top saying that. -- Scorpion0422 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the lead it states "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." and I have this for other similar FLCs. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, guess I missed that. Another minor issue, there is some over linking in the references section. Usually only the first use of a source should be linked. -- Scorpion0422 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in another FLC, but I will summarize here, I prefer to link all the publishers so they don't have to always change if references move around. Gary King (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, guess I missed that. Another minor issue, there is some over linking in the references section. Usually only the first use of a source should be linked. -- Scorpion0422 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the lead it states "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." and I have this for other similar FLCs. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm fairly convinced the list is comprehensive, however it would be nice to see the lead expanded a bit more (I realise it already has been). Possibly a bit more about AOL itself or other interesting purchases. It would also be amazing to see a graph of cumulative acquisitions over time or something similar. Things like graph are rare in Wikipedia articles but really put articles among our "best". Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.