Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft

Microsoft edit

There's a lot of history behind this - for those who want to check my early edits - you'll see I made a rant last march on the talk page about how biased it was etc.. Well, of course as one might guess nothing happened for months, so for the past months I've been working countless hours bringing it up bit by bit to featured standard, and I think its finally there.

Well, and for the article itself, its an extremely comprehensive article on the controversial company that everyone loves to hate, otherwise known as Microsoft. Its written in a painstakingly NPOV manner, and was written, well, pretty much by me (with copyedit assistance from Wayward and random tidbits added mostly by anons :)) - there isn't really anything at all left over from the version from march, sans the business culture stuff. Its surprisingly stable given the subject matter, and I'd like to think the writing is good on it as its probably the best I can do.

The peer reviews are here(2nd) and here(1st). Hopefully the comments on those are resolved. Anyway, any comments etc. appreciated :).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 13:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to support, but I found a minor quibble: the facts & trivia section shouldn't be there, especially given its shortness and its only content being a two-bullet point list. The puzzle hunt could be moved to business culture, and the home computer system...well, I'm sure there must be some place for MSX in there. (Or maybe not? After all, it's already quite crowded.) Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I merged them into the appropriate places. In truth though the MSX thing was so minor to microsoft that they don't even mention it in their own timeline- maybe it should be just listed in see also instead? Currently merged in the history section. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From first glances and fleeting scans it seems like a good, supportable article - I should be able to tell you either way if I get round to reading it tonight. Perhaps one odd point is that there are no pictures of any of the "key people" (Bill Gates seems like the logical choice) or any of its products (Windows XP perhaps? X-box?) except the blue screen of death... The current photos are good but I would consider a corporations key people and products an important item as a picture. --Oldak Quill 14:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the problem is that none of those photos are "free" and would have to be fair use.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think fair use is quite justifiable in this instance. 14:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Fair use would be fine for this article. Microsoft as an entity can only be put into image form by using pictures of its key people, key products, or maybe headquarters. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 22:32
  - Nothing on their videogame system in the 2000-2005 when it played a large part in their effort to win the livingroom "war".
    - Well, it is mentioned in the product divisions section (perhaps it deserves a brief mention in the history section as well? I'm not sure if its "major" enough though - what do others think?).

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - - It was their first major entry into the hardware buisness.I don't know but the history section misses something about their hardware stuff and their effort to diversify.
Support it looks good, I added in the Xbox photo and the MSN homepage to illustrate their sections, I believe it would be nice if an MCP/MCSE would scan/photograph their card/certificate for the article... but other than that I think its good. ALKIVAR™ 00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple fo pics of Gates on the commons.--nixie 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "A great deal of time and money is spent each year on recruiting young university-trained software developers who meet very exacting criteria" —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I mean take a look at [1] or [2] for an example of an "interview" there for the kind of criteria they want. I suppose maybe it could give an example or reword a bit though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Good article; the plethora of useless links has been pruned, making it much easier to read, and focusing readers on the many high-value links. Tony 04:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS Can the photo of the Indian headquarters be shifted up to the end of the previous section, where it's mentioned in the text?[reply]