| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance 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. | |  GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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. | | | GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business 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. | | | GA | This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. | | | | [edit] Improvements Required - Copy editing review
- Additional European and emerging markets perspective
First of all, let me point out that an impressive amount of has been spent to create this article. I'm sorta interested in attempting to review this article, but before we proceeed, the size needs to be dealt with. It's over 100 Kb in prose alone. It's generally not considered acceptable for any article, even for truly massive topics like history of the world, and this is a fairly narrow subject. However, the article is already divided into four time periods, so a suggestion is that each of these should be lifted out as separate articles. This would then allow for shorter summaries here. let me know if you have other ideas on how to reduce the size. Other than that, a general suggestion for improvement is to convert most, if not all, bullet lists into prose, preferably with fewer individual examples. Also, the movie poster images lack fair use rationales for this article, and I'm not really sure that including the images in this article is really necessary. Peter Isotalo 14:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC) - Agree with the length comment. I stumbled upon this from the GAN page and figured maybe I could learn something while sprucing it up a bit. However, I couldn't even begin to get through it (or really even start) because of the length of the article. I also recommend that the four periods be broken out into subarticles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking up the article I personally think that from a flow perspective, it would be a mistake to break up the article. The article is long. That is undeniable. I am mostly concerned about destroying the quality of the content, and losing context. I also don't think the separations in the main article are necessarily as clearly defined as in the History of the World. As a result I a would propose the following: - History of private equity and venture capital
- All headers remain as they are
- "Main article" links to subsidiary articles
- Remove lists of deals and firm formations from headline article
- Remove some of the more detailed information so duplication of text vis-a-vis subsidiary articles exist but is reduced
SUBSIDIARY ARTICLES (each one referenced in the main article): - 1 Pre-history
- 2 Origins of modern private equity
- 3 Early venture capital and the growth of Silicon Valley (1959 - 1981)
- 4 Early history of leveraged buyouts (1955-1981)
- 4.1 McLean Industries and public holding companies
- 4.2 KKR and the pioneers of private equity
- 4.3 Regulatory and tax changes impact the boom
- 5 The first private equity boom (1982 to 1993)
- 5.1 Beginning of the LBO boom
- 5.2 Venture capital in the 1980s
- 5.3 Corporate raiders, hostile takeovers and greenmail
- 5.4 RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate
- 10 Responses to private equity
- 10.1 1980s reflections of private equity
- 6 LBO bust (1990 to 1992)
- 6.1 The collapse of Drexel Burnham Lambert
- 6.2 S&L and the shutdown of the Junk Bond Market
- 7 The second private equity boom and the origins of modern private equity
- 7.1 Resurgence of leveraged buyouts
- 7.2 The venture capital boom and the Internet Bubble (1995 to 2000)
- 7.3 The bursting of the Internet Bubble and the private equity crash (2000 to 2003)
- 7.4 Stagnation in the LBO market
- 8 The third private equity boom and the Golden Age of Private Equity (2003-2007)
- 8.1 Resurgence of the large buyout
- 8.2 Age of the mega-buyout
- 8.3 Publicly traded private equity
- 8.4 Secondary market and the evolution of the private equity asset class
- 9 The Credit Crunch and post-modern private equity (2007 – 2008)
- 10 Responses to private equity
- 10.2 Contemporary reflections of private equity and private equity controversies
Any suggestions regarding titles is welcome. I moved section 6 from the end of the second |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC) - Losing context isn't a problem as long as you summarize it properly. There's always more detail to add to any article, but more content isn't the same thing as improving article quality. The comparison with history of the World was really just to get things into context, not an attempt to set both articles on an equal footing. Keeping the article structure seems a bit like adapting reality to the map rather than vice versa. I recommend trying to look at this problem from the perspective of someone who isn't deeply immersed in 20th economic history.
- Peter Isotalo 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review - This review is transcluded from Talk:History of private equity and venture capital/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Images there sure are a lot of them. Before I look at tags, I want to suggest the use of the |px| argument to standardize the size of the images across the article. Also, there are 15 images in this article. I submit that 5-8 of these aren't necessary for the article itself and don't add much for the reader. That isn't a GA criteria, so I won't press the point.
-
- The Image:Vax780 small.jpeg fair use rationale justifies the use of that image in the VAX article. How does the inclusion of this image in this article help the reader to better understand the subject?
- Both Image:Wall Street film.jpg and Image:OtherPeoplesMoney.jpg seem superfluous to the article and NFCC 8 would provide some caution against their use in this particular article.
- Other than those two issues, the images check out.
- Sources Largely good. citation format is consistent. Some citations occur at odd points in the text. For example, the citation for the characterization of the continental airline buyers vis Carl Icahn doesn't really need to be there. The contentious claim is not that Icahn was viewed negatively (this was already shown in the previous citation of that reference). The contentious claim is that the saviors of Continental were viewed as such. I don't see that claim supported by in text citations in this article or the main article for the section. Perhaps it is in a broader reference, but it would do to be cited inline. Claims like this crop up throughout the article. For example, this citation serves only to verify the factual claim made in the previous sentence (specifically, "The NVCA was to serve as the industry trade group for the venture capital industry"). It is the only citation in the sand hill rd. section. A look at the main article shows the exact same paragraph but with a variously cited list of companies afterwards. I realize that a considerable amount of the information stems from Ante, Burrough and Bruck. However the practice of interspersing large blocks of otherwise unadorned text with what seems to be a non-sequitor citation is odd. That being said, no irregularities about the sourcing rise to the level of what I would fail or hold a GA for.
- Format This article is too long. Since there are more than a few related articles whose text is similar if not identical to this one, it would be better to convert certain sections into a summary form so that content is not duplicated and readers have a reason to travel from one article to another. Barring that change, multiple 'main' links are distracting. One section should be picked for the 'main' link and all sections related to that main article should be subordinated to the first section. Specific suggestions:
-
- Merge the "responses to private equity" to the related sections. As it stands it is a poor way to end the article. IF the content can't be merged properly (most of it should be able to), then there isn't much lost in removing it.
- Merge the LBO bust subsections together.
- The lead is good.
- I can't stress enough the importance of converting the sections as they are now to a more proper summary format. With the articles interlinked, it adds little to have whole sections of text be identical between articles. We can sacrifice some detail for scope in this article.
- Style There are some style problems in this article. I suspect these problems arise from the failure to use inline citations scrupulously, but they may not all be. Weasel words exist throughout: "it was thought...", "...these practices are increasingly discredited", "Bonderman and Texas Pacific Group were widely hailed..." etc. Some of these (arguments that poison pills and the like are increasingly discredited as management practices) could be couched as statements of fact and so that might just be a case where the citation isn't directly supporting that claim. Others need to be reworded.
-
- Some content is duplicative within the article. The greenmail section mentions poison pills and they are again mentioned (in the same sense and using wikilinks) in the LBO bust section. While it may be appropriate to mention the term again, it should be clear to the reader that this is a revisitation.
- I haven't checked thoroughly, but I'm guessing that wikilinked terms are overlinked in this article. While this article does a good job linking important terminology, names and events, the MOS for links should be followed more closely.
- The article generally does not contextualize the subject in a larger sense. This isn't entirely fair criticism as it is only partially true. Some portions (pre-history, venture capital in the 80s, The third private equity boom and the Golden Age of Private Equity, Origins of modern private equity) do this well. Some do it fairly well (Regulatory and tax changes impact the boom, Early venture capital and the growth of Silicon Valley (1959 - 1981)). Others are very much focused on the exact details and don't comment on the impact on the larger context. Admittedly, I don't feel this is a failure of the editors. The sourcing is largely parochial and temporocentric. In lots of cases, there aren't broader impacts to private equity actions that are easy to decompose. But it bears mentioning all the same.
- Overall. This is a detailed, interesting and helpful article. It greatly increases the readers understanding of the subject at hand and it is (with some work) approachable by a relative novice. I am going to promote this article with some reservations:
-
- the article needs to be shortened, summarized and contextualized.
- Citations, even to works used 'on background' need to be consistent, appropriate and correct.
- Wording and formatting need to be worked on. I won't hold an article back from GA because the prose appears to be written by multiple voices (see some of the examples above), but it will fail FA.
- All in all a good article and a good read. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History of Venture capital Being interested mainly in venture capital (although with some exposure to PE), I would prefer if the history of the VC would be a separate article in all the series. I find the flow hard to follow the history of VC, as the article is predominantly about LBO and PE. Please note that there is not a lot of overlap between PE and VC, as we are talking about different players, different concepts and very little textual overlap in the article, besides the section about the tech bubble crisis. Thoughts? Editor br (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC) - I would not strip out the venture capital text from the main article as the intention was an integrated chronological article on the private equity disciplines. Given that they often alternatively ebb and flow this structure seems most appropriate. I think the distinction you are drawing is more artificial and more recent (perhaps in the last 15 years) than you suggest. I would suggest one of two courses: (1) focus on making the desired changes / improvements to the venture capital#history section or if really necessary (2) creating another subpage that focuses on the course of venture capital. You will notice that Venture capital#History and Leveraged buyout#History already run parallel. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- I understand and appreciate the intention to present the chronology of all PE disciplines together, but I beg to differ that the distinction between PE and LBO shops and VC is artificial and recent. We are talking about different types of deals, different risk profiles, different type of decision-making and so forth. Some may argue that the PE history, as it is understood today, started with KKR and has its origins in the IB industry. On the other hand, the VC started with Deriot, Fairchild, Route 128/Silicon Valley and it has its origins in entrepreneurs.
-
- Another evidence that this approach may be incoherent is that the same text about VC is repeated in three distinct articles: (1) the main history one, (2) the sub-articles, and (3) the VC one, the same does not happen in the buyout. I wanted to include some references from two books I read (The Money of Invention and Regional Advantage from AnnaLee Saxenian) but repeating the same text in three articles sounds incoherent, besides all this redundancy making it harder to others to contribute.
-
- Please, don't take this personally. I praise the structure you and others provided in the article, as well as all that the PE taskforce accomplished so far. This article is very well written and deserves the GA status. But I find hard to contribute the way it is, besides the fact that the overlap in all these articles seem incoherent to me. If you strip down the VC section from the main article, you probably won't need to divide the article in three, keeping them overall more manageable, don't you think? Editor br (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't take it personally. I wrote the article almost in its entirety so I am closest to it. I created the subarticles relucatantly due to complaints that the main article was too long. There is a duplication of text betweeen the subarticles and the main article but my intention is to provide the reader with the opportunity to read the survey or the detailed article.
-
-
- I personally think if you want a history of just venture capital, the appropriate place is on the venture capital page.
-
-
- However, I am not sure why you keep describing the article as "incoherent" and why it is so difficult for you to contribute as it stands. It follows a very logical chronological order. Why don't you lay out specifically what you would like to see added to the talk page and we can discuss it. Considering that as far as I can tell you have yet to make even one contribution to this article, to the venture capital article or any other related topic, if you just try to break the article apart I am not really going to support that and in any event you have not made any case for doing that. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am a new editor and I find it hard to discuss about some articles which appear to have one main contributor, like this one. It is natural that these editors will have strong opinions on what can or should be done.
-
-
-
-
- To address your point about writing about PE/VC, I just wrote two articles in the fringes of the topic, The Money of Invention and The Second Bounce of the Ball, and I am trying to use some of these sources to enhance the articles about VC. I was about to include some things about ARDC and the evolution from publicily traded to limited funds but I started to browse in the articles and I could not find the ideal place for it. I personally found the replication of all these paragraphs in so many articles incoherent, so I am giving you suggestions on how to improve it. If you prefer, I can replicate the articles in my userpage in the way I see them.
-
-
-
- If it is necessary to gain some degree of "informal authority" about PE/VC prior to editing or even prior to give suggestions, I am happy to address one of the topic articles in the taskforce to "qualify" to discuss. Can you point out the article within the VC scope that you find the need help the most (if you need any help at all)? I am personally not that interested in US firms -- although I live in US, I am moving back to Brazil and my personal interest is the capital and private equity markets in my local economy. It is funny how some people prefer to discuss before editing, while others question that I am just discussing and not editing at all.
-
-
-
- Also, can you address my points about the distinction of VC and PE? You said that I was artificially imposing a distinction, and I think I did some interesting remarks about that before, that you did not comment. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- P.S.: one of my main objectives in Wikipedia is to expand the Portuguese domain, so I am translating and editing a bunch of stuff related to Brazil in both domains, VC not being my sole interest. I hope you understand that my contribution to the PE/VC taskforce will probably not be as high as yours.
You don't need to qualify for anything. I just don't understand the urgency with which your original commentary seemed to be posted since you have not previously shown much interest in the topic (at least on Wikipedia). The entire rationale of writing the article in an integrated fashion is that the distinction between buyout firs and venture firms is sometimes overstated and takes away from the history of both. In the early history of private equity, the distinction between venture capital, growth capital, management buyouts, leveraged recapitalizations and leveraged buyouts were not necessarily as formally separated as you make it out. Firms evolved from venture into buyout. Forstmann Little and Hicks Muse were considered buyout firms but invested heavily in venture investments in the late 1990s. Firms like Apax, Advent, Carlyle, TPG, etc. have practiced both disciplines.
If you are interested in Brazilian PE you might consider looking into a firm like GP Investimentos. I will note that if you need better proof of what I was describing above look at the Latin American market where the distinction between buyout and venture is even more blurred. Good luck and let me know if I can help. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC) - Okay, as I find some of these discussions in the Talk pages counterproductive, I will refrain from suggesting anything in the history of the PE/VC. I reread my postings and I don't see any urgency but rather an emphatic argumentation, which may be too controversial and impolite to Wikipedia standards (as I can sense from your response). I just started editing, so you should not expect any previous interest in the topic here. Please, don't bite the newbies =). Anyway, there is so much to do and write in Wikipedia about VC and PE that, even though I can see a better way to structure this topic, this is only my opinion and it is probably wiser to contribute in another article, leaving things as it is.
- Regarding VC/PE, the problem with your reasoning is that, if VC/PE are as integrated as you reason, the article should not be as separated as it sounds now. It reads like two distinct texts. Anyway, discussing about the differences between PE and VC depends on the perspective you like to take - you can point out the similarities, I can point out the differences and we will never converge, so I give up on that as well.
- I will write an article about GP Investimentos then. Please note that the distinction in LA markets may initially be blurry because venture capital is nearly inexistent and LBOs are harder due to limits in leverage. But GP Investmentos, to evaluate the firm you mentioned, does divide their venture capital arm in a different firm, called BRZ Investmentos. Since 2005 (I think) GP Investmentos is mainly focused in buyouts. This blurriness is not as big as you point out, but again, it depends on the perspective you take on this issue and I do understand what you're trying to convey. Cheers, Editor br (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
|
