On this TV show, some experts share their best ideas for buying or selling stocks. They talked about three companies: CrowdStrike, ONEOK, and Leidos. Each expert picked one company they liked the most to tell people about. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It suggests that ONEOK, Leidos, and a major cybersecurity company are on CNBC's "Final Trades", which implies they are the most important or best investment options for the viewers. However, the article only mentions three out of many possible companies that could be on the show, and does not provide any evidence or reasoning for why these three were chosen or why they are better than others.
2. The article is poorly structured and lacks coherence. It jumps from one topic to another without explaining how they are related or why they matter for the readers. For example, it mentions that CrowdStrike Holdings (NASDAQ:CRWD) was named as a final trade by Joseph M. Terranova, but then quickly moves on to ONEOK (NYSE:LDOS) and its 5% yield without giving any context or background for either of them.
3. The article relies heavily on personal opinions and anecdotes rather than facts and data. For instance, Jenny Van Leeuwen Harrington says that ONEOK has a 5% yield, but does not provide any source or evidence for this claim. She also does not explain what the yield means, how it is calculated, or why it is relevant for investors. Similarly, she names Leidos Holdings (NYSE:LDOS) as another final trade, but does not give any reasons or arguments for her choice.
4. The article contains several grammatical and spelling errors that undermine its credibility and professionalism. For example, it uses the wrong tense of the verb "names" in the first paragraph, and misspells Jenny Van Leeuwen Harrington's name as Harrington in the last sentence. It also uses unclear abbreviations like CNBC without explaining what they stand for or providing a link to their website.
5. The article does not provide any value or insight for the readers. It does not offer any analysis, advice, or recommendations on how to invest in these companies or what factors to consider. It also does not compare them to other similar or competing options, or address any potential risks or challenges that they might face. It simply lists three names without giving any reason or context for why they were chosen or why they are worth investing in.