Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Investment

Welcome

Hi. Welcome to the project. Let us know if there are any articles out there that need our attention. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

SWX Swiss Exchange

Please check SWX Swiss Exchange. Thank you! --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Short selling - expert assistance needed

Please see this request for expert assistance [1] regarding short selling and help out if you can. Thanks! --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

References

This may not be the best place to ask this. What kind of material (online or off) are considered acceptable references for finance/investment type articles? One of the aims of this project would be to convert investment articles to GAC and FAC level and that can't happen without references (which are severely lacking in many investment articles).

For example, are study notes provided by the Institute of Actuaries or the CFA institute acceptable?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any issues with those sources. They seem fine with me and I think that for now we can go ahead and use them as a source. Greg Comlish (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there everybody: how about inviting the CFA Institute and/or one of their approved study providers such as Schweser to help build out Wiki/Investment: it would fast track development, would be educational, rather than commercial, be global in terms of definitons and would get this section going once and for all? HC (July 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrycobbe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Online Brokerages

Today I have been categorizing Online Brokerages. This was important because one of the first things investors need to do is choose a brokerage. I noticed two disturbing and related trends:

1. Many online brokerage articles are being deleted outright by vigilantes against "advertising".
2. Many online brokerage articles have serious POV issues.

We need to set some standards and guidelines. First, I think SIPC approval should constitute sufficient grounds for notability. Any brokerages with SIPC approval should not have their articles deleted. Setting up a brokerage is not like setting up a website. It's actually very difficult to get access/membership to all the necessary exchanges + SIPC approval. So people need to take it easy on the stubs.

Secondly, we need to take a clear stand against advertising and promotion. Flowery quotations, optimistic projections, and the like should not be included, even if verifiable. I'll write up some guidelines on this issue and incorporate them in our Project page. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Vigilantism is allowed at Wikipedia, as is collaboration :). I am with you in opposing promotion – optimistic projections from investment newsletters or even newspapers are not encyclopedic. By the way, I have seen a flurry of new company articles (not brokerages) that were entirely plagiarism. I asked admins to delete them and replaced some with stubs that I wrote. There is an essay somewhere on how to write a stub, but the most important things to avoid the vigilantes are:

1. Assert notability. Read WP:CORP.
2. 1 or 2 independent references, preferably major newspapers
3. Avoid promotion :)

Hope that helps.

Could you post a list of important brokerages that don't yet have articles (or were deleted and not yet recreated) on the project page? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Securities fraud

Experienced editors are needed to flesh out this article. Please help. It should be at least ten times as long and far more substantive.--Bassettcat (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated project banner

Greetings Investment Project personnel, just letting you know that per a notice left at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, your project template has been updated with new code to allow for two parameters: "nested=yes" and "small=yes": the first allows for nesting within the aforementioned template, and the second allows for a minimal right-aligned box on talk pages. I'll add documentation shortly. I notice that you don't currently have a project image or any sub-templates for organisation, and as such did not allow for such in the template. If at any time in the future you create these things (or other features), please leave a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to rewrite the code to accommodate them. Cheers! — Huntster (t • @ • c) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Net asset value: Investment co vs normal company

This article needs serious help. I tidied up a bit and added a reference but before I do any more I'd just like to ask a question. At the moment, it tries (but fails) to make the distinction between the use of NAV in an investment company setting and in a normal company setting.

Personally, I don't know whether NAV refers to investment companies only although I haven't come across the term being used to describe the value (book or market) of the net assets of a normal company (but that could just be me). Should we use two articles or keep the one article but properly separate it?

All comments welcome. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I just realised that I have come across NAV refering to normal companies (I even contributed to that article). Found another [2] as well. So I guess we should keep the one article but make sure it does a good job of distinguishing between the two. Any comments regarding merging net assets into Net asset value?

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How about this for an alternative?

• Merge Net assets and Ownership equity into Balance sheet
• Merge Net asset value into Collective investment scheme

Too radical?

After I wrote that, I found this Book value#Net asset value. Not so easy to tidy up after all :( --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with merging Net assets with Ownership equity but I think they deserve their own article separate from Balance sheet. I'm not sure about putting Net asset value into Collective investment scheme - that move may be met with some resistance because NAV is sometimes used in the context of non-investment companies. This is a tough one.

Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Although net asset value, strictly speaking, is just a special case of ownership equity, the terms generally are used in different contexts and I would be hesitant to merge them. Net asset value is used mainly in the collective investment scheme context. Specifically, "net asset value" implies that the entity mainly holds portfolio investments that are valued at fair market value. "Ownership equity" implies a wider range of holdings, typically valued at book value (i.e., adjusted cost) rather than fair market value. I would support a merger of net assets into ownership equity. John M Baker (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the net asset value article quite significantly, hopefully for the better - I come from the hedge fund side of things, so the other parts (especially the REIT section) may need looking at by someone more familiar with it. Westmorlandia (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Our banner

Just wanted to ask why we have a link to the banner on the banner? Also, is the "current collaborations" necessary? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"Current Collaborations" was inherited from the WikiProject Template. We can get rid of it or update it or maintain it as a to-do list. Either way. I think whoever cleaned up the banner decided to place a link on the project page. A lot of other projects do have the banner listed, but I have no strong feelings about it. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if we're going to have "current collaborations," then we need to update them from time to time to keep them current. While I am perhaps biased, since I've extensively revised the exchange-traded fund article, I think that there are others that are more in need of work. John M Baker (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your bias is is not without merit. I think you did a great job. Keep it up!. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Rigour in the introductory section

Hope this doesn't seem naïve, but I just wanted to know how much rigour (i.e. technical detail) to put into the opening sections of the various articles. Since we're all looking at the ETF article at the moment, I'll use that as an example. Here's the current opening paragraph:

An exchange-traded fund (or ETF) is an investment vehicle traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks or bonds. An ETF holds assets such as stocks, bonds, or futures. Institutional investors can redeem large blocks of shares of the ETF (known as "creation units") for a "basket" of the underlying assets or, alternatively, exchange the underlying assets for creation units. This creation and redemption of shares enables institutions to engage in arbitrage and causes the value of the ETF to approximate the net asset value of the underlying assets. Most ETFs track an index, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or the S&P 500.

The following are questions (not suggestions) that I thought about from trying to look at the article from a lay perspective. Actually, I am a layman when it comes to ETFs.

• Should we make reference to derivatives (like futures) or other complex securities in the introduction?
• Should we use technical terms (like "basket" or "creation units") in the introduction?

I fully agree that all the (notable, verifiable etc) information we have should go into the body of the article but I think that the opening sections should be as simple as possible. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be the first to say that I've never really felt all that comfortable with my ability to write a good introductory section. I just now tried to revise the exchange-traded fund intro to make it a little more user-friendly. I don't really think that "futures" or "basket" are particularly technical terms (though I did take "futures" out of the intro, since the concept is not very important there). There are more difficult technical terms, like "net asset value," but that one seems unavoidable. I moved the arbitrage discussion down to the third paragraph, so it doesn't immediately blow the reader away.

Speaking more generally, I think we do need to maintain rigour, but we should try not to overload the opening with technical detail. John M Baker (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to jump in here but I am new and not sure how to do it. I would like to have a crack at helping with the ETF introductory section to make it more user-friendly (can be modeled after Wikipedia intro). Should I draft something and recommend it here or insert it in the working page for ETF's Influencenyc (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you post something on Talk:Exchange-traded fund, where it will get attention from people who follow the article but may not necessarily follow this WikiProject. The article has been revised to make the first paragraph more reader-friendly, but I'm sure the intro could use further improvement. John M Baker (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, the ETF talk page seems like a better home for that. I posted here originally because I wanted a general consensus and I used ETF as an example. Besides, most of us here have Exchange-traded fund on our watchlists anyway. Best, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

COI

We represent an online brokerage client and I created a user sub-page on thinkorswim (the logo has been orphaned) trying to understand how their article might be presented - at least from the company point of view. I know that this is a blatant COI and it is created for discussion and my education in learning what makes a credible Wikipedia article. Investools just changed its name to thinkorswim and there is no thinkorswim Wikipedia article. And if a thinkorswim page was created, what would/should happen to the Investools article? We would like not to repeat the mistake of the Investools article - with big questions about its usefulness and NPOV. Perhaps there is a way to improve the whole "Investment" section through this. I researched our client's competitors and their articles can use improvement as well. I am feeling my way around the Wikimedia world - would appreciate any feedback. I see how strict Wikipedia is about COI. On Investools they represent the company: thinkorswim Group inc. Inc. I tried to delete the redundant "inc." and they slapped me with a COI and put it back. Sheesh.

Above discussion by Influencenyc, moved to talk page by John M Baker (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I browsed the article history: it seems your trouble in deleting "inc." was accidental. I have fixed it.

To address your wider concern, there are vast numbers of companies that try to advertise on Wikipedia, and some of them are not notable at all. Therefore, the community tends to be quite trigger happy. I think many legitimate public relations professionals stay away from Wikipedia. So I applaud you for trying to understand the community and start a discussion.

Articles often change gradually over a number of years, so don't expect to have a polished article without "improvement tags" in the first month. Also, you have probably read the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." but it bears repeating. Having posted your proposal on a user page, hopefully another member of the community interested in your company will select what they feel are the most appropriate bits, and incorporate it into the encyclopedia.

With the recent merger and name change, I suspect that the best thing to happen will be if someone moves (renames) the Investools article to Thinkorswim, then incorporates some of the material from your user page into the moved article. You can upload the logo again yourself, as long as you follow all the requirements listed at WP:NFC.

Regarding your question about credibility, my personal opinion is that your proposal is not bad at all. My personal opinion is that Charles Schwab Corp. E-Trade and TD Ameritrade are quite credible articles, though could do with improvement. In contrast, the banner on ShareBuilder highlighting substantial issues also looks appropriate. The bulleted list of thinkorswim products stands out in my mind as the most obvious clash with Wikipedia style.

Of course, ideally you could try to emulate any of these FA-Class Companies articles.

Hope that helps.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that is very helpful. I see that Investools has been moved to thinkorswim. I deleted the bulleted list of thinkorswim products on my user sub-page for thinkorswim. So, I can ask that members of this group consider incorporating some of my suggestions in the thinkorswim article but I cannot do that myself since it would be COI?Influencenyc (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to WikiProject Finance

What should we consider the relationship between this project and WP:WikiProject Finance to be? It would seem that this is essentially a sub-project of Finance. Private Equity has a different approach that seems to work for them. Am I overlooking something? John M Baker (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is none. Both Finance and Investment wikiprojects are suffering from lack of participation. I think they should be merged. --Patrick (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We should perhaps move this discussion to WP:Finance or post a link to this there. My thoughts have always been that WP:Investment is a sub-project of WP:Finance. But with different objectives. The following is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance:

"The aim of this project is to make Wikipedia an authoritative, current, and useful site for anyone interested in better understanding the field of finance. It aims to make the world a better place by demystifying the workings of financial markets, its actors, and the underlying concepts."

The aim highlighted in the first sentence is clearly a vital aim that WP crucially needs. I don't disagree with this and I think that WP (with or without WP:Finance) is doing a good job in achieving that aim. But WP and WP:Finance have both failed dismally in achieving the aim in the second sentence. The following is from Wikipedia:WikiProject Investment:

"Ultimately this project is dedicated to democratizing knowledge of the marketplace and giving the small-time investor the background needed to make his/her own decisions."

WP generally has a huge issue with articles being too technical for casual interested readers and this project has, as its main aim, begun a process to try and fix this problem. So it is a sub-project but it's also very focused. Fwiw, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge After seeing the function of htis wikiproject, I agree that it should be joined together with WP:WikiProject Finance. Most investment topics are truly finance topics and by creating two separate wikiprojects doesn't this just divide and take away focus from efforts. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 20:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay okay. The fact that this is the sixth edit in the last two months shows that we're achieving nothing here. I guess it's more important to have an active project than a focused one. So I would like to change my stance and also agree with a merge. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Investments and finance and highly related, but finance is significantly more broad than the topic investments. I think for the time being it is best to leave the two projects separate. Nobody has merged them yet and I see it happening any time soon. I think it's best to keep the edits coming on the investment related pages. Eventually, participation will improve. --Glinos (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Naked short selling

If we look at the Wikipedia article traffic statistics statistics for "Naked Short Selling, we see that traffic increased greatly in mid-June. The problem is that the article is in a pretty bad shape. We could really need some editors, with knowledge on investments, (& who are NOT a sockpuppet of G.W.) to edit Naked short selling and the related articles. I´ll give a barnstar to the editor/editors who get this article presentable! Regards, Huldra (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Stanley could use update

Morgan Stanley could use update in light of recent developments. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Symcor - admin help needed.

Hi could an admin please undelete this to my User space? TD owns 1/3 of this firm and I'd like to look into whether this is likely to have happened at Symcor clients as well. TIA. --Elvey (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done -- I put it (such as it was: just a single sentence) on your talk page. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. result.--Elvey (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

PFOF

An article (or article section) on PFOF (payment for order flow) would be useful.
I came looking for it because I could understand the second but not the first paragraph below, even though I understand Market liquidity. My best guess is that it's a complicated way of saying OMX charges a net $0.0002 per share offered or traded.

"TD AMERITRADE Clearing, Inc. receives payment from The NASDAQ OMX Group for orders that add liquidity to this venue and are subsequently executed. The rate for adding liquidity for the fourth quarter 2008 for listed securities was $0.0028 per share. TD AMERITRADE Clearing, Inc. is charged for removing liquidity from this venue. The rate for removing liquidity for the fourth quarter 2008 was $0.0030 per share.

TD AMERITRADE Clearing, Inc. receives payment from Citadel Execution Services for directing listed equity order flow to this venue. Payment is variable based on the size and type of security at the time of order execution. Payments received averaged $0.001 per share for order

flow executed in the fourth quarter 2008." (source)

yes, they give some money back to people who place limit orders, and they take some money from people who place market orders —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question?

Nicoleslun (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I kinda had a question about investing in municipal bonds. In my Problem Solving class, we are supposed to research and give our opinion of the value of investing in municipal bonds versus earning %3 interest every month in a savings account. Does anyone have any insight that may help me? Thanks

Presuming you're from the U.S., I'll give you a hint: taxes. (And please see our article on municipal bonds, which will help you with your assignment.) By the way, you might get faster answers at the Reference Desk. We don't have one specifically for finance/investment, but these kinds of questions usually show up at the Humanities desk. Antandrus (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

every purchase of real estate is an investment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.87.90.8 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Investment articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Investment articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP Investment Barnstar

Hi All,

I think the time has come to be able to put out a barnstar to recognize those wikipedians who do excellent work on our pages. Every now and then I notice people who do some herculean efforts on behalf of this project and I want to create something to show appreciate of the community. Greg Comlish (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Hedge fund regulation

For anybody who may come across this, I have written a draft section for the Hedge fund page about regulations in the U.S. and abroad (that version here), with the aim of bringing the current section (the current one here) up to present day. Right now it's definitely out of date, in fact it doesn't even mention the Dodd-Frank rules going into effect. Because my day job involves me in the financial industry, I'd like to get someone else's view of it, before I consider moving it myself. And since the hedge fund article falls within the purview of this WikiProject, I figured I would ask here (as I will ask at others) in case anyone has thoughts to share on the subject. Please respond to my post on the Hedge fund Talk page, if you like. Thank you. --Bryant Park Fifth (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011

Wall Street, a page within the scope of this project, has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for May 2011. All editors interested in improving this article are encouraged to participate. You can also vote for next months article of the Month here. --Kumioko (talk) 20:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edward Jones Fraud settlement

In the page for Edward Jones - not balanced

It states all the awards the company wins, but ignores a $127,000,000 settlement for fraud. Per the Edward Jones web page: http://www.edwardjones.com/groups/ejw_content/@ejw/documents/web_content/ejw_900360.pdf

Acting as executor, Edward Jones just placed a fund that earns 0.01% into my mother's Trust, and estimates 12 to 15 months to close the Trust.

Shonebarger (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)pjs

I guess you mean the Edward Jones Investments article. I replied at Talk:Edward Jones Investments#2007 class action settlement

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Winton Capital

I've just added the article Winton Capital Management to the scope of this WikiProject, and I'd like to follow up here and see if anyone is interested in reviewing the expanded version I have proposed to replace it. I'm getting involved at the request of Winton Capital, so I'm hoping to find consensus for the change before I make any direct edits. Please add your voice on the Winton Talk page if you're so inclined. Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Revision and Expansion of the "Social Risk Management (SRM)" Entry

As part of a course project for the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities class offered at Rice University, I intend to revise and expand the entry titled "Social Risk Management (SRM)". The Social Risk Management page is a short entry regarding a World Bank conceptual framework for efficient risk management. Almost all investments regardless of size and industry involve some measure of risk. It is therefore imperative to have a clearly thought out plan for preventing, mitigating and coping with risks in all sectors including the area of social investments. Revision and expansion of this entry page to include background that led to the creation of this conceptual framework, detailed strategies and terminology proposed and defined by the World Bank and the current and future implications of the approach can make this entry a resourceful one for many investors. I would like to request the members of WikiProject Investment for suggestions to improve the page through reorganization and addition of content. Please feel free to propose changes in addition to the ones mentioned above that you would like to see on the page and any questions you would like to have answered by the entry. Thank you. Kjhooda (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Update to the Real Estate Investment Trust Page

Hi, I've mocked up some edits to the Real Estate Investment Trust page in my User:Jlance3/sandbox. I was hoping someone would review my suggested changes. The changes were made to the opening, history section, United States section and the External Links. I am making these edits on behalf of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, so would like to find consensus before posting the actual edits. Thank you Jlance3 (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started working on the REIT page and I have implemented my first set of edits. I have take the advice from and editor, Gulbenk. Input from other editors would be much appreciated. Thank you Jlance3 (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Update to the Nuveen Investments Article

In keeping with the COI guidelines WP:SCOIC, I am requesting the Nuveen Investments page please get a review and possible update. I will add some sources referencing the ARS section that can help balance it out and maybe reduce it to just one paragraph if that's possible since it's been stated the article is heavily weighted towards the ARS content. There are many references that are broken and probably should be removed especially in the paragraph "collapse of ARS". Is there a reason why that paragraph is even there? Can that be linked to the Auction Rate Security page?

The first reference is wrong and should point to the following page: http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Corporate/About/Products.aspx

Should the article be added to the Business and Finance Wiki Projects?

I can also supply content for an info box on my sandbox page (also public knowledge from the website). Can I upload an imgage to be used? I'm new and don't want to violate any rules of the COI since I am the content manager for Nuveen. Thank you Nickienelson (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to the Individual Development Account (IDA) Page

Template:WAP assignment The current article on Individual Development Account lacks history/background information on IDAs, detailed information on the processes of IDA programs, a global perspective on the tool, credible references, well-supported & updated data and criticisms of the program. These features are crucial for providing a comprehensive and neutral outlook on Individual Development Accounts in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. In light of this, I propose making the following changes to this article throughout the course of the next two months:

• Add a short section on history of the tool to provide context for the rest of the article.

• Expand the section on 'Purpose' to include the interaction of IDA usage with domestic policies.

• Add subsections under 'Programs' to cover programs in both the United States and in other parts of the world.

• Update the section on 'Usage Date' to include well-supported recent data since the current reference link is broken. Also, I will be renaming the section 'Data and Impact' and expanding the section by adding available scholarly analysis of the data.

• Adding a section on 'Criticisms' of IDA programs and implementation to provided a balanced perspective.

• Adding scholarly references for the added information as well as for existing information with broken reference links

For a thorough presentation of the project and a resourceful entry, I would like to request suggestions to expand upon the ideas I present here. Please feel free to propose additional changes that you would like to see made to this page. Thank you.

Kjhooda (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Need review of Alpha Indexes

This newly created article needs review from knowledgeable editors. In particular there are issues with the sourcing of the graphs attached to the article; please comment Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 May 6#File:1 Month Implied volatility AAPL AVSPY SPY.jpg where the immediate topic is a graph that was briefly added to the article but which is now unused. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Winton Capital Management

(t - c) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

 – Handled it. II

Hello to anyone who may be watching this page: earlier this week I posted a request on the Winton Capital Management talk page about some needed updates for the article. So far this request has gone unanswered and, as a paid consultant to Winton, I would like to avoid any COI edits to the article. I am hoping an editor will review my request on the article's Talk page and make these changes for me. For someone with an interest in investments these updates should be fairly simple—I am primarily looking to correct unclear of the terms "firm" and "fund" in the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?

There is an RfC here Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#RfC:_Should_the_section_title_for_Academic_freedom_controversy_be_changed.3F concerning the article on Hans-Hermann Hoppe. There is extensive background discussion elsewhere on the talk page there. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have revised the section heading here to reflect what the RfC title is and modified the link to create a Wikilink. – S. Rich (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Winton Capital, one last request

Someone from this wikiproject recently helped me with a request to help bring the Winton Capital Management article up-to-date. Now I have one last request for this article, and rather than risk asking too much of any one editor, I figured I'd see if there's anyone else here willing to take a moment. You can see my note here, and in it I suggest adding some more detail; I think it is encyclopedic, reliably sourced and neutrally phrased, but I'm open to feedback. If you'd like to join the discussion, I'll be watching that discussion page most closely. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Real Estate Investment Trust Page

I have made some pages to expand the history section of this page. I have posted these changes in my sandbox and would like to check with the community before posting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jlance3/sandbox I am making these edits on behalf of the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, so would like to once again find consensus before posting the actual edits. Please advise on changes to my edits, and thanks in advance for the feedback. —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How can we tell how your changes are different from what's in the article now? John M Baker (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The changes are largely comprised around streamlining the article. The introduction has been smoothed out and a lot of the important information regarding the history has been moved to the history section. We have the history expanded upon into two sections to help make the article easier to navigate and find appropriate information.