Talk:National Australia Bank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Prose
I think that this article needs to gradually be worked into continuous prose. - Aaron Hill 04:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As the contributor of the bullet point history, I can't say that I agree. My experience with continuous prose is that authors slide over substance for style. Thus one gets "During the 1980s, the NAB started to expand into Asia", and one loses all the detail. Anyone trying to pin down the issue of when it actually went someplace, perhaps to figure out which Australian banks were competing where, is SOL. Acad Ronin
True, but bullet points are only effective when used as part of an article in continous prose, perhaps to highlight a specific point or provide a timeline as in this instance. When used as the basis for the entire article I must agree that this is unencyclopedic, and certainly some other info on NAB apart from the timeline would go a long way to cleaning up this article, which i am on the verge of listing on cleanup. THE KING 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Incomplete
Aside from the debate over bullet-points versus prose, the content of this article is materially incomplete, somewhat misleading and rather oddly selected. For example, the creation of an intranet in the cards division is gazetted but the $4.6 billion purchase of MLC businesses in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Thailand, Hong Kong and Indonesia does not rate a mention. Listing on clean-up seems warranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.158.42.45 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] formatted sections
This article like all the other Au/NZ banking group articles I've seen in wikipedia needs to have clear cut sections and not just list the recent history of events. If its a corporate profile, then it should clearly have at least the products and services section or Core Business Activities, something along those lines.--Takamaxa 5 Jun 2006
[edit] Advertisement
I agree with the contention that for the most part, the article currently reads, if not like an advertisement, then for the most part like what I would expect to read on the company's website. NAB's recent history (say over the last four years) has been plagued with controversy, yet this is played down, particularly given the relative prominence attached to a lot of frankly unremarkable events earlier in the company's history. Murtoa 07:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biggest Bank?
This article states NAB as the second largest bank behind the Commonwealth Bank. However, the Commonwealth article states the opposite...that Commonwealth is second behind the NAB. What's the deal? -Nickuss. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.166.3.111 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
NAB is the biggest bank by ASSETS, which is the usual measure of a banks size. CBA is the biggest bank by REVENUES. Note that NAB's larger asset base but smaller revenues is a result of its recent underperformance.