 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Thanks to User:Ferkjl's help with my related request above, content within the article's List of investments section is now more current and timeless. As such, I noticed that the introduction is now similarly out-of-date where it says "The firm currently has five active funds and roughly 50 current portfolio companies, including Verifone, Renaissance Learning, Bomgar, GoodRx, Quest, BluJay (formerly Kewill), ClickSoftware Technologies, SmartBear Software, and SonicWall." If editors agree, is a volunteer willing to assist by replacing this sentence with relevant details from the List of investments section? Ferkjl, thanks again for your help with my other request, I'm pinging you here in case you would care to weigh in on the best handling of this, or aid with its implementation as an extension of your last edit. A reminder: I will not make my own updates to the page as I respect the rules in place for my conflict of interest as an employee of Francisco Partners. Thank you all for any consideration, please let me know if other information is needed and I'll happily collaborate further. Janice at FP (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take a quick look. In general, not a fan of "currently," so I'll replace with "As of" clauses. --FeldBum (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Janice at FP, I'd like to update the intro with something like "As of April 2021, Francisco Partners has XX active funds and YY portfolio companies, including A, B, C, D and E." Wanna help me find the numbers and nouns to fill in those letters? And some sources for those (although I'm pretty good at that and can help). This is the intro, so I don't think you should list all investments--and I'd lean to investments that exist on Wikipedia, instead of redlinks or unlinked companies. --FeldBum (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hi FeldBum, I'm returning to help with the "numbers and nouns" of your proposed content framework, as requested.
- I want to start off by noting that Francisco Partners has more than $25 billion in assets under management and it has invested in more than 300 technology companies, which you see here in our press release. However, I know that press releases like this are not ideal, so I found this U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing that verifies more than $25 billion in assets under management and a 2020 Chicago Business Journal source that says Francisco Partners has invested in "more than 300 technology companies."
- The List of investments section was recently updated, with User:Ferkjl's help, to add sources and include a more relevant and timeless sampling of the portfolio. This update replaced a comprehensive list that was difficult to keep current. As well, the section now only lists examples that have their own Wikipedia articles, as you suggest for the introduction.
- I understand from the MOS:LEAD that the introduction should summarize details (and sources) that are most important from within the main body of the article. I believe the most relevant examples and sources may be found in the current List of investments section of the current article.
- With all of the above in mind, I tried to complete your proposed framework, with appropriate sourcing, as follows:
- As of 2020, Francisco Partners had more than $25 billion in assets under management[1] and invested in over 300 companies in the technology sector.[2] Though not a comprehensive list, noteworthy acquisitions and investments include GoodRx,[3][4] BeyondTrust,[5] Renaissance Learning,[6] MyHeritage,[7][8] Forcepoint,[9][10] Redis Labs,[11] and Verifone.[12]
- Does this provide what you need to update the article introduction on my behalf? Please let me know if there's any more I can do to help. Thanks for collaborating! Janice at FP (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- It's reasonable. I went ahead and implemented it. Ferkjl (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ferkjl, thank you for your assistance! The introduction is a more current and effective summary for readers, thanks to your help to apply these edits. I see there is one other piece of outdated information in the lead, specifically "Founded in August 1999 and based in San Francisco and London, Francisco Partners Management L.P. has raised approximately USD $14 billion in committed capital." That sentence is missing our New York office and the committed capital now equals $24b following a fundraiser last year. For ease, I'm again including a proposed draft, with sourcing, for what might replace the above outdated details:
- DRAFT: Founded in August 1999 and based in San Francisco with offices in London and New York, Francisco Partners Management L.P. has raised approximately USD $24 billion in committed capital as of June 2020 when the firm raised nearly $10 billion for tech company investments. At the time it was noted as one of the largest capital pools gathered among private equity firms that year.[1][2]
- You will notice that I removed the Forbes citation from this part of the intro. That is because the Forbes piece only confirmed that Francisco Partners has bases in San Francisco and London. The source I used from San Francisco News has more updated information. It is worth pointing out that removing the Forbes source from the intro does not remove it from the article altogether, as that piece is cited later in this Wikipedia entry. Using both The Wall Street Journal and San Francisco News sources allows this article to cite something other than Francisco Partners' website.
- As always, I welcome input from others. Also, some of these suggested details might be better suited for the body of the article. Perhaps an experienced editor can determine which details should be included in the lead and which should be included in the body as well, if any. Also, is there a volunteer who is willing to incorporate these changes into the live article for me? Once again, I'm mindful of rules about my conflict of interest and will not do so myself. Thanks for any consideration. Janice at FP (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ferkjl and FeldBum, I wanted to notify you of this most recent request in case you are still interested. Thanks for considering. Janice at FP (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Janice at FP:
Partially implemented The last sentence is too promotional for my taste, but I would not oppose it if another editor chose to implement it. Melmann 11:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Janice at FP: Agreed. I updated the infobox with the new AUM #, but that other line is both too promotional and not encyclopedic enough for me. --FeldBum (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Melmann and FeldBum, thank you both for your assistance! Janice at FP (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
