Talk:Blackstone Inc./GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead does not summarize the article; it introduces it, and has two lists. The first (list of business areas) should be rewritten to prose, while the second (lists of offices) should not be included in the lead at all. Just state how many offices they have.
   • Do not presume people know what M&A is. Alway spell out abbreviations the first time.
   • Never use US Postal state codes. While very common within the US, people from outside have not the faintest idea what states they are, and may not even understand they are state codes.
   • 'Derivation of the Blackstone name', while worthy of inclusion, is far to trivial for its own section; find somewhere else to put it.
   • Disjunctions use an endash (–), not a hypen (-). See WP:DASH.
   • Only need to link the first occurance of US$. Since it is a US company, it is fine to use only $ after the first instance of 'US$' (or 'USD').
   • Sentences like "As of the end of 2008, Blackstone had completed fundraising for six funds including five traditional private equity fund and a separate fund focused on telecommunications investments with total investor commitments of over $36 billion." really need a comma or two in them. As an author, you must guide the reader to where it is natural to take small breathing breaks.
   • On Wikipedia, the term "...is currently..." cannot be used, unless referring to a period of more than a decade (and preferably not even then). Wikipedia articles may be copies verbatim to other sites, and left unmodified for years. Always state "As of 2009..." or similar.
   • Non-tabled lists should be used very sparingly. The give a very unencyclopædic and unprofessional look to the article, and should instead simply be rewritten into prose. I am in particular referring to the lists under 'Marketable alternative asset management' and 'Financial advisory services'.
   • It is redundant to name the title of the article in subheadings, e.g. 'Blackstone during the 1990s' should be just '1990s'.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Ref 7, 10, 12 and 60 are not formatted properly.
   • Ref 70 is dead.
   • There are several [citation needed] tags (included some, but not all, added by myself).
   • I would have preferred to see the references for tables at the end of the preceeding text (when introducing the table), before the semicolon, instead of under, with the wording 'source: ...'
3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Please do not force image sizes. Use 'upright' on portrait-aligned images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing article on hold. There are a few minor issues that need to be dealt with, and it will pass. Good work so far. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think most of the comments have been addressed with the exception of certain bulleted lists in the body of the article. In the context of an article that includes discussion of certain businesses in which Blackstone operates this appears to be the most appropriate means of presenting the information. This can easily be turned into paragraphs but it is my judgment that this reduces the clarity of information. The current presentation is consistent with standard business writing and from my read of WP:MOS this usage can be acceptable. I think all of the other items have now been addressed. If you have additional suggestions they would be welcomed. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• The following comments are very picky, and related in part to that you wanted feedback to get an article to FA status. The comments mentioned here are not necessarily GA criteria. Take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. This includes a series of information and exercises related to improving prose, in particular to be able to reach FA status. My concern is not that you do not write a professional degree of English, but the exercises help a thought process to better prose writing. It helped me, so it might help you. Concerning lists, I find that some of them you use are unnecessary. For instance, the list under 'business segments' is fine, because incorporating that into prose would require four sentences. Note again, to not use a hypen (-) as punctuation. The list under 'marketable alternative asset management' is in my opinion not fine. Here there are five short fragments that could easily have been listed in a single sentence; it takes up a lot of space, does not look good and I find the use of two columbs very confusing (the reader must stop up and make a choice whether to read the columb vertically or horisontally). Otherwise, current ref 74 (to United Biscuts) is dead.
• I will pass the article since I will again be away for some days, and the only issue left is a single dead link. I trust you will correct the problem at the first opportunity. Congratulations with another good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)