Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts

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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts[edit]

This list is based off List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of acquisitions by Google, a featured list, both done by User:Gary King. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Place (EA) after the last time you use Electronic Arts in favour of the abbreviation.
Same comment as on the other acquisition lists, three ways of describing (and linking) to US$ is too many.
Several red links - they ought to be resolved, even if just stubs.
I'm sure there must be categories other than Acquisitions which could be used here.
The list is virtually an orphan - consider linking to it from some of the articles mentioned within.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed most of the problems and will do the rest tomorrow. Hello32020 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every comment, but the other categories one, fixed, what would you suggest, since they were all acquisitions. Organize them into video game developer acquisitions, website acquisitions, et al...? Hello32020 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the list categorisation at the foot of the page. The category for the entire page. But it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added EA category. Hello32020 (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a couple of the original acquisitions simply link to their derived products. Gary King has done this as well, creating the redirects himself. He's now asking for the redirects to be deleted. I think a consistent approach may be needed across these acquisition lists for such links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unclear on what you are proposing. (A few things I think that you could be referring to.) Hello32020 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - For example, DreamWorks Interactive just links back to Electronic Arts. As does Manley & Associates. As does JAMDAT Mobile. Gary King has removed these redirects and written stubs. That's my major concern that this list won't be consistent and have links to the actual companies. For instance, JAMDAT Mobile sold for over half a billion dollars, it must be worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Created articles on all of the original companies. Hello32020 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments for the next nomination in the list (Yahoo!). TONY (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, anything else? Hello32020 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't at all addressed my misgivings below. I have to say that the lead is far too short and is superficial. Even when it has the chance to round-up the numbers in the table below, it doesn't. It says nothing to position this surge of acquisitions in the industry as a whole, in terms of its US competitors and foreign companies. What was the corporate strategy behind it? Was it a particular CEO or board that was behind this? Is it regarded as a successful business plan by the company and by others? Has it led to synergies in terms of product innovation, etc? There are lots of questions. You don't have to answer them all, but the lead pitifully fails to do what Criterion 2a says it should do. And 28 refs at the bottom: can you do the readers a favour and drag out morsels from them to let us into the topic? (A succinct drawing on highly relevant info in the larger article would be good: only what's strictly relevant, but double the current size of lead would be good. Any room for the company logo? Refs: I see not one author listed. What makes them reliable? You know how clubby and lemming-like the finance industry and journalists are. Do the refs provide, as a whole, NPOV sourcing we can trust? TONY (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly hard to find good information on this, I hope what I've done is sufficient. Hello32020 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested two sources: the related article (which would need to be reworded if you draw on its information—not hard) and the ?28 references you've provided at the bottom. TONY (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already provided an example of how EA uses a new acquired company to expand its fields, now added practices in EA in regard to newly acquired companies. Hello32020 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've copy-edited the additions. The nomination is certainly better than it was. TONY (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems like the section of the first paragraph (after the 1st citation) that describes the information provided on the list may fit better either at the end of the elad or as an introduction following the section break before the table. - Marrio (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to the end of the lead. Hello32020 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - Marrio (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Odd image placement in the lead, and this quote doesn't make sense to me: we intend to build a leading global position in the ... business of providing games on mobile phones." That ... isn't in the quote, so maybe it should be in brackets? Other than that it looks good. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added brackets for quote and I can't find a better placement for the images, other positions I've tried look more strange. Hello32020 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie review
- EA's logo can be seen pretty clearly in the free image. Could you remove the non-free one and just use the free one?
- Add an external link to EA's official website.
- I've made a few tweaks to the lead, feel free to revert.
That's actually just about all I can find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, I have implemented your requests and your edit was good so no need to revert. Hello32020 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've looked it over, and I think it looks good to me; I can find nothing wrong with it. Noble Story (talk) 02:20, 15 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.