Microsoft edit
Previous peer review. Well, the article has been expanded drastically and many parts have been rewritten. I believe the concerns from the previous peer review about the criticisms section have been addressed, and I even added in the velvet sweatshop mention for good measure (even though its not in the common criticisms article!). I'm sending it FAC after this - so if you have a comment do not hesitate to chime in! Its time for Microsoft to become a featured article! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is a good article, and its neutrality defies the "encyclopedia that Slashdot built" moniker. There is still some room for improvement. The article is somewhat too focused on Microsoft products, and does not have enough on Microsoft as a business. In what countries does it operate? There is a photo of a German campus, but no indication of where its 57,000 employees are based. There also is nothing about the recent dividend payment, which was extremely notable in the business community. Other than a bit about its IPO, Microsoft's stock price is not mentioned. What is its corporate structure?
- Formatting wise the article is quite good. Trivia sections are generally to be avoided, and it would be best if the facts listed there were merged elsewhere in the article. It would also be good if the history sections could have more descriptive section titles. The article could also use better images. Image:On Microsoft Campus.jpg, for one, seems to mainly be a photo of a park bench. - SimonP 17:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs improvement. Here are some examples of why the text needs to be sifted through thoroughly and thoughtfully:
- 'Microsoft has gone through several stages throughout their history. During 1975 they were just an idea' ... This might be closer to the mark: 'Microsoft has evolved through several stages since its establishment in ... (why singular and plural mixed?).
- Opening sentence: cite worldwide annual sales of .... as well, when saying it's the largest software company.
- 'headquartered' is clumsy, and 'widely-used' is incorrect.
- 'ubiquitous' internal codes?
- Uneven level of detail in the lead, which should be a smooth overview that prepares us for the greater level of detail below.
- 'people have criticized', 'some describe'—be more specific, or say 'it has been widely described'
- link all full dates for the autoformat function, but please consider delinking low-value years and decades (only some are linked now anyway). See Wikipedia:Make_only_links_relevant_to_the_context.
It will get there, but needs LOTS of work still. Tony 13:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Object subject matter is still too evil to be made an FA. Borisblue 01:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- On a serious note, i'm surprised you didn't send it for vote the last time. I disagree with Tony, I think it definitely will pass if voted on now.
- All I can say is that the FAC process is rigorous. The article needs a separate run-through in detail before submission. Tony 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments guys! I've already talked to Simon. Tony - a couple people I know have went over this and submitted fixes since then, and they also seem to disagree with the "LOTS of work still" comment, although I do admit your help is quite good on this (and I might agree with you about the lead too). I still need to add some of Simon's stuff from above, so I'll let everyone know when I'm done with that (and some other things like the lead etc.):). Thanks for the encouragement Borisblue! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
OK GUYS - I added a bunch of stuff - including stock info, corporate structure info, user culture info, and a section heading to corporate affairs. I also reworked the business culture part, moved out some stuff from the trivia section and merged it with the article, and took care of a few of tony's suggestions. I'm still unsure about the intro though - most people I've talked to say it's fine, but Tony seems to disagree. Perhaps you could highlight which parts are covered too much and too little? Anyway, so how does the article look overall guys? I think its VERY close to FA status :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, can't look until end of week. Tony 01:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey - don't worry about it - this thing has nearly twenty days left on it :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I rewrote the intro quite a bit, somewhat to address Tony's concerns but also for my own flow pickiness. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
OK - originally I was going to wait until this thing ended but I had time to do a word-by-word copyedit, and at this point there's literally nothing else I can think of. So thanks to everyone for their comments :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 12:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)