Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Apple Inc./archive2

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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 09:15, 6 July 2008 [1].

---

List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

previous FLC (15:22, 26 April 2008)

I am re-nominating this list (after, what, two months?!) because I have worked on it and believe that it meets the criteria now. I haven't submitted an FAC or FLC in a month and a bit, so I nearly broke a sweat submitting this. A major change I made in this list is that now, all of the acquisitions are sourced to the SEC, an extremely reliable source. Gary King (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good! Drewcifer (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments A few super-quick comments. More to come soon:

• You should only wikilink full-dates.

  If you are talking about "February 2002", then that is generated with {{dts}}, which I use to make that column sortable. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The right-alignment in the Value column is nice, but the citations kind of screw it up. Just put them in the column reserved for citations.

  I moved them to the Company column instead, as they are only related to the Value column. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some external links would be nice.

  Done Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since they're an American company, shouldn't the dates be in American format? (Month DD, YYYY)

  Actually, they are in that format since that's what I typically use for dates. Perhaps you're user settings are overwriting the article's? :) Gary King (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "US$" in the lead is too informal

  Agreed; I have changed it to "US dollars". Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." But all of the acquisitions are listed... ?

  Good point; that was there when there were some without values. Removed. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The citations are moved, but the right-align is still a little funky. At least for me.

  Fixed Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why the citations in the Company column? Can't that just go in the reference column too?
  • Just noticed the footnote. I think those should be a note rather than an in-line citation.

    Done Gary King (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• SEC should be spelled out in the lead.

  SEC is "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission"; it's already spelt out. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry, not lead, in the citations.

  Already resolved Gary King (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't force the bolded title.

  It was originally unbolded with the same text, and I just bolded it. I don't think the sentence loses any meaning by having the article's title in the first sentence. Gary King (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, you're right, let me rephrase. A straight repetition of the list's title in the first sentence gives a poor read. So I guess it's not the bold that I have a problem with, it's the unnecessary repetition and the poor writing it imposes on the first sentence of the list.

  Done Gary King (talk) 06:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Drewcifer (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• It's up to you, but consider beginning with "Apple Inc. have made ## aquisitions" (but better), to appease the bold-intro fans, as well as those of us who hate "This is a list of.."

  I prefer how it is now, especially since a lot of recently promoted lists appear to be like this one way or another (i.e. introducing the topic first, then the last paragraph really talks about the list). Gary King (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine. I'm one of the ones who has been pushing for more engaging starts, but I'm unsure of the balance for keeping both camps happy. Anyway, I'm happy to defer to you on this. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 1 appears mid-sentence

  That's because it is sourcing the information before it; more importantly, the second reference sources the incorporation date, specifically. Gary King (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I thought it was an MOS thing, to be honest, but WP:REFPUNC says you're right. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Fails criteria 3 for comprehensiveness. This list is incomplete and I have left further comments at its Talk page. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The list originally had more, but some were using references that merely used statements such as "Apple is thought to have acquired", etc. That's why I have changed the list and am only referencing SEC reports, because those are pretty reliable. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

<moved to talk page> Gary King (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article's content has not changed and is still lacking information-my Oppose stands. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think that the acquisitions mentioned by Wackymacs on the talk page should be included (I've done one but cannot find the value).
• Footnote ^[A] about the shared value is put after the company names. Should it be put after the value of each company instead/as well, as this seems more appropriate.

  It was originally in the Value column but then moved because someone mentioned it did not make the Value items align well (since they were then bumped to the left a bit.) I am inclined to somewhat agree, and so I have moved it. Gary King (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, if that's what people think that's OK. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 16:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise this is a good list. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.