Talk:National Westminster Bank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article National Westminster Bank has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
January 21, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Good article GA rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as high-importance on the assessment scale
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Revision history

From 26/10/03 to 13/11/07 is at the NatWest redirect page. Chrisieboy 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting codes

National Westminster Bank use the following ranges of sort codes, these are six digits long formatted into three pairs which are separated by hyphens:—

Range Note
01 former District Bank Ltd.
50–59 former National Provincial Bank Ltd.
60–66 former Westminster Bank Ltd.

International Bank Account Numbers take the form GBxx NWBK ssss ssaa aaaa aa, where xx refers to a check digit, s to the sorting code and a to the account number. The Bank Identifier Code, or SWIFT code, for NatWest is NWBKGB2L (8 digits) or NWBKGB2Lxxx (11 digits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisieboy (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

Some minor things - leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "Actionline" is mentioned in the lead, but not again anywhere in the article. Generally the lead should summarise the article's content. Same with the NatWest series. Y Done
  • On that note, the lead doesn't really talk about history, and only a bit about structure, yet these are major sections in the article
"It was established in 1968 by the merger of National Provincial Bank (established 1833 as National Provincial Bank of England) and Westminster Bank (established 1834 as London County and Westminster Bank)."
  • Remember to wikilink dates per WP:MOSDATE Y Done
  • "said either to symbolise circulation of money..." - the stuff in brackets here needs a source. Also the statement (in brackets) is a bit too long Y Done
  • "Duncan Stirling, chairman of Westminster Bank, became first chairman of the fifth largest bank in the world." - This is the first time you note that it's the 5th largest...
I think it's fair enough that early in the article and in the same para. as the merger is discussed? It is supported by the same ref. as the preceeding sentence.
  • "Expansion" section could do with more sourcing Y Done
  • The "Controversy" should be split into a few paragraphs so it makes more sense Y Done
  • "n a friendly £10.7bn deal" - how is it friendly?
When a bidder makes an offer for another company, it will usually inform the board of the target beforehand. If the board feels that the offer is such that the shareholders will be best served by accepting, it will recommend the offer be accepted by the shareholders. A takeover would be considered hostile if (1) the board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or (2) if the bidder makes the offer without informing the board beforehand.
  • The image in the "Structure" section needs a better caption Y Done

— Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How's progress on this? Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll address your first two points over the next couple of days. Is that okay? Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk)
Yep, that's fine. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Passed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Chrisieboy (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separate operations?

I think the following sentence:

"The District, National Provincial, and Westminster Bank were fully integrated in the new firm's structure, while Coutts & Co. private bankers (a 1920 National Provincial acquisition, established 1692), Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland (a 1917 Westminster acquisition, established 1836) and the Isle of Man Bank (a 1961 National Provincial acquisition, established 1865) continued as separate operations."

should be slightly amended:

"The District, National Provincial, and Westminster Bank were fully integrated in the new firm's structure, while Coutts & Co. private bankers (a 1920 National Provincial acquisition, established 1692), Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland (a 1917 Westminster acquisition, established 1836) and the Isle of Man Bank (a 1961 National Provincial acquisition, established 1865) continued with their own branch networks and branding."

The reason I propose this change is the article at present does not really represent the truth; the operations were only separate in the eye of the customer. Myredroom (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is correct. Coutts, Ulster and IOM banks are actually separate operations. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)