Talk:Tradeweb

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... I agree with nom. that the article needs mayor improvement, but a quick search in Google reveals many potential WP:RS. I also saw Tradeweb quoted as a source of economic data by other media --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one referenced from Bloomberg, removed a phrase that seemed promotional and added a category to the article, the article still needs improvement. I leave to other editors to improve it, if it is not deleted.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it concerns a company, not a person, and the language used is not promotional. Also, for what it's worth, I corrected the grammar and capitalization of someone who edited the page. --Gusstjames (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Gusstjames[reply]

TL; DR on the history

The history section is about four times longer than it needs to be. If an editor with knowledge of the industry could eliminate some of the PR release "events" from the timeline, leaving only the major innovations and acquisitions, the article might gain some readability.--Quisqualis (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020: Hope this article is encyclopedic now

It's far from a perfect article (not enough great in-depth sources), but it has, I believe, cast off it previous PR-speak miasma. I tried to organize the history, and find it still not that interesting, which I blame on the industry the company serves (institutional bond traders). I've been around that world, however briefly and tangentially, and find it doesn't hold much interest to the uninvolved. I judge the article encyclopedic.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]