Talk:Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Clearly the rankings change year by year, although most of the names recur. New columns might be added each year, or the article then be renamed - FY 2009(08) and a new article created - FY 2010(09). If links are made to each of the current top 100 company articles and there is a delay in the annual update, the links might nevertheless be a further measure of notability for each entity, and it would be clear from the list to what year the reference relates. Alternatively, ?perhaps best?, should I create a new category 'Top US Federal Contractors'? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be articles for each of the names on this list (most already exist, several do not)? Presumably the $bn annual revenues would be a marker of notability? BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 14:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting list. I made it sortable. It would probably be better if each company had all its data on one line (E.G., 2009 rank and 2008 rank). I am unfamiliar with any table on wikipedia that structures its information in such where unrelated companies can be on the same line. It's a basic rule of databases that one line is one entity. The way it is currently structured has different companies on the same line and only related by rank. Anyway it's a very interesting list.Americasroof (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't

The Top 100 Contractors of the U.S. federal government for 2013 is now available HERE. (The article needs to be updated). El Ayudante (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Contractor" isn't a proper noun, and initialisms should be spelled. This should be at Top 100 contractors of the United States federal government. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article in my sandbox for FY2015, including intro - I'm currently trying to gather more non .gov sources and relevant articles, please let me know if anyone has an issue with the update. I'd like to post it before the new year. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I updated it anyway since there doesn't seem to be any activity on this talk but I'm open to critique/engagement on the topic! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A) 18. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY redirects to both the existent American company AND the non-existent British company, so which is it ?

B) (According to Wikipedia), 7. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP merged with the 4. RAYTHEON COMPANY in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies., so I guess this article DOES need to be updated. From where and when is it pulling its data ?

C) (According to Wikipedia), 9. LEIDOS HOLDINGS INC is formerly known as Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), while 17. SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP is still listed. So, are there duplications even without updating ?

SalineBrain (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]