Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple

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 by User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [1].

List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple

Gary King (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Like the others this one should also probably be named "List of mergers and acquisitions by Apple" or something to that effect. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks I missed this one. Done! Gary King (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved review by SrX

Review by SRX (talk · contribs)

It was established in Cupertino, California on April 1, 1976 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak[1] and incorporated on January 3, 1977. - comma after Wozniak.
Apple's business philosophy is to acquire small companies that can be easily integrated into existing company projects. - sounds POV since there is no source to verify this statement.
How about in the lead stating how many companies overall were acquired/merged, not just in the U.S.
Also, how about stating what was the first acquisition and the most recent one.
Per Template:Reflist#Multiple columns, 3 column format of references should be avoided.
Other than that, prose and tables look fine. Sources need to be checked by Juliancolton or Ealdgyth.--S_RX 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Their business philosophy uses the reference at the end of the paragraph, but I moved it up to clarify this. Also, the first paragraph already states the total number of acquisitions. I've added what the first acquisition was; however, I don't want to add the most recent one since that can change fairly often. The reference list actually changes the number of columns based on your screen size; if you shrink your browser then you will see that it changes the number of columns, which fixes the problem with normal three-column reference lists. Gary King (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The list meets WP:WIAFL after my addressed review.--S_RX 21:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Should this be sortable by name, or does that create more problems than it causes? Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The columns are already sortable by name. Gary King (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"with most of them being software companies"—No with + -ing sentence structure please.
"during when parts of the company are sold to another company." Doesn't make sense.
Why don't the Thomson sources have publication dates?
Ref 1 needs a published date (at the bottom). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. The information from the Thomson sources isn't necessarily published on the same date that the company publishes the information, which is what the date from each page signifies. Gary King (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has the same divestment confusion as the Red Hat one. It would appear that three of the 'divestments' are actually other companies buying stakes in Apple. However in the lead you say that five companies in total were divested. This doesn't seem to tally at all. I think that these three placements (which from your comment on the Red Hat FLC I presume they are) should go in a separate table in the article. If you did that, then you could have a different set of headings e.g. you could get rid of the 'Target Company' and 'Target business' sections (which are always going to be Apple and Personal Computers) and perhaps replace them with the percentage acquired (if known). The two actual sell-offs would remain in the existing table. Boissière (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the bit in the lead to imply that not all of the divestments were "parts of the company". I don't think the Divestment table should be split; the reference that I use, for instance, considers them as Divestments as lists them along with the others. Gary King (talk) 21:07, 7 November 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.