This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV :Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
AT&T was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
I'm aware there's been a bit of debate about when AT&T was founded, and I don't know enough to get involved. I just thought I should point out that, whatever the definition, Alexander Graham Bell did not found it in 1983. This is surely a discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be the original American Telephone and Telegraph, now AT&T Corporation and a subsidiary of this company, the former SBC Communications, which was founded as one of the Baby Bells in the 1983 split and later took the AT&T name when it bought out its former parent. So, yes, by the legal definition of its articles of incorporation, this company was founded in 1983, and not by Bell. oknazevad (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
== In 2013, the Spanish Government would have dampened a friendly takeover attempt of AT&T on Telefónica, valued in 122,000 million euros. Such an impediment would be justified in the strategic nature of the company and AT&T would have taken a step backward. ==
I have a hard time parsing this. What does this mean exactly? Who was to take over whom?
It seems highly speculative and vague. For instance, what does "...would have taken a step backward" refer to?
Why is this blurb shown in such a prominent place in the article? It is, at best, of regional interest, not critical to the (history of the) company as a whole... Perhaps a separate "subsidiaries" type section would do?
The article on the original co. was at some point re-titled "History of AT&T" but the "about" box didn't keep up, thus redirecting to one of the new co.'s subsidiaries. I've edited this but if anyone disagrees... Chrismorey (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
No, the History of AT&T article was newly created as a sub-article not long ago in order to prevent this article from being bogged down too much with the at times convoluted history of the name. The name has been used by two companies, of which AT&T Corporationis to original company, which is now a subsidiary of the former SBC, itself a spin-off of the original company. So the links that refer to the historical AT&T that point to the current subsidiary are correct, as that subsidiary was and is actually the original company. oknazevad (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)