Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of S&P 1000 companies/archive1

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of S&P 1000 companies

Featured list candidates/List of S&P 1000 companies/archive1

Nominator(s): XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it has met the potential to provide valuable information towards individuals and groups with particular interests in business and finance. As a requested article, I have consolidated information provided by S&P 400, List of S&P 400 companies, and other reputable online sources in order to create this list which shows information of 1000 companies that are tracked by Standard & Poor's index. The article contains non-copyright images, and table-sort facilities that help users navigate the page from all devices. Also, it provides background information in regards to the index, as well as technical information. XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs a lot more information in the lead and bout the S&P 1000 itself, especially because there is no corresponding S&P 1000 Index to expand on this. Looking at S&P 500 Index, very little of this sort of information is in this list detailing its background.
I don't know why the Russell 1000 is mentioned in the second sentence. Tell me everything about the S&P 1000 first, then comparative indices.
No comma between exchanges and NYSE.
I don't see where in the source for there being 1001 companies actually says 1001, nor why it's not 1000.
The last sentence of the lead is meaningless: What technical data? What is Capital IQ? There's no wiki article for it, and the source links to a useless log in page.
Why are the constituents split into two lists? This nullifies the ability to sort by name or anything else.
How are changes to the list made?
The 500 article discusses the weighting formula, why doesn't this?
Not that you have to copy the other article, but List of S&P 500 companies is fairly different from this list.
So I oppose for now. I think this has a way to go. Reywas92^Talk 06:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Reywas92, the article definitely needed to cover some of the points that you have mentioned.

For your first point, the S&P 1000 is just the combination of S&P 400 and S&P 600, which are just the top nth number of companies in the market index. Hence, there isn't much information that could be written about S&P 1000 Index. Though I only provided background information on S&P 1000 and S&P, the reader can refer to S&P 500 (the main index) and S&P for more information, since it is only a list which combines two indexes.
Thanks for noticing that! I added similarities and differences between the indexes. I added it in the second sentence as there is usually confusion between the two. One just excludes BDC and the other doesn't.
Changed minor error with comma between exchanges and NYSE.
Added a source. Although you do need to log in to Capital IQ as it is a commercial/educational platform, it is the most reputable because it is offered as a subsidiary of S&P.
Added more information about Capital IQ.
Explained weighting formula. Mentioned briefly how the list is changed. Linked to more information for a more technical response.

I do have a question for other Wikipedians. A 1003 row list is fairly large, and it gets laggy on mobile devices and sometimes laptops/desktops. I understand that it's harder to sort by name etc., but how do I go fixing that? Do we just accept that the page can be laggy for some users?

Thanks! XOLE2129 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a think about it for a few days and I realised that it would be more effective overall if the table is combined for functionality, as what you have mentioned. I also removed the 'collapse initially' option to make it quicker for users to navigate the article, with an option to collapse if they're just after the information in the beginning.

Thanks again, I hope you reconsider this article to be a suitable nomination for featured list with the improvements that I have made based on your comments.

XOLE2129 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

I agree with Reywas92, this list does seem extremely big (almost 200k bytes); maybe you could separate the list into A–L and M–Z or something?
'Holdings by region' table isn't consistent with the other tables (col headings should be dark)
I find it weird that the table is collapsible when it's the main table; honestly shouldn't be
Change date refs to month day, year not YYYY-MM-DD
Images need alt text
There's also only 11 refs. Feel like there should be more
I would bold 'S&P 1000' in the beginning
Since this list is American, make sure to use American English (capitalisation → capitalization; annualised → annualized; etc.)
Why are the dates in the image captions DD MMM, YY? Change to American dating
Lead "index.The S&P" – space
Many of the companies in the table are redirects and aren't properly stylized (for example: Aaon Inc should be AAON Inc.)
Acxiom is now known as LiveRamp
I would put a content box above the table so you can click a letter and it would go to the first company with that letter for better navigation

Still needs work. I'm sorry but for now I'm going to have to oppose. I do want to see what other editors have to say about it being too large because in my opinion it is. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from XOLE2129

Hi, I originally had the list separated from A-K, L-Z. However, Reywas92 mentioned that it'll ruin the functionality of the table sort (alphabetical order), so I changed it based on that feedback. However, I am entirely open for editors to discuss which option would be better suited.
Fixed all graphics and formalities (date, alternative text), thank you!
It is a table combined from two individual ones, so it is hard to add more information (and therefore references), since it is a list. Though, there should be a main S&P 1000 article but unfortunately there isn't.
~~The content box would be an interesting addition in the article but would I need to do one for every letter?~~ Disregard that, I assumed that the contents box would be vertical so it would have made the list excessively not proportionate and long.

Again, it's open for discussion on the function of the actual list (whether it should be sorted, or separated since the list is big). I only made the table collapseable because the article is big. Regards, XOLE2129 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UnitedStatesian

Strongest possible oppose for this ever being a featured list.
With that out of the way, kudos to XOLE2129 for the work put in.
With that out of the way, here are the reasons:
Significant overlap (40%) with an existing list, List of S&P 400 companies, that is already maintained by numerous active editors.
Almost guaranteed to be out of date all the time: for instance, the list currently contains Jack Henry & Associates Inc and Lamb Weston Holdings Inc; both are no longer in the 1000.
Too large, as has been pointed out above.
Too many nonlinks, thus violating the guideline for list inclusion.

UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.