Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Microsoft/archive1

Post-review

An embarrassing close—list (from the lead only—more later):

1. http://www.thocp.net/reference/info/about.htm How is this a reliable source?
   • Yeah, I was always weary of that one but it was the best online source I could find at the time. Really, to be more encyclopedic it should have some hardcover sources unfortunately most are given from a POV/agenda and not too many focused on actual history. Plus, alot of it is just so nascent...RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Almost all sources don't identify publisher, many have wrong information, and are lacking publishing information. Two examples from among first ten refs: [1] (Microsoft is often the source for Microsoft info, press releases aren't identified, info should be independently sourced) [2] [3] (publisher and date should be identified on all sources, particularly readers should know how often Microsoft itself is the article source)
   • Those are good points. I don't think back when I did this I would expect such an in-depth critique :)!RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Is Todd Bishop's blog a reliable source? Can't a better source be found for a company as well known as Microsoft? http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/
4. Blogs are not reliable sources: http://www.corplawblog.com/archives/000219.html
   • Same excuse as the first really - in other words valid point; would like to find better sources.RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Books sources need page numbers: three examples from the lead only are Jennifer Edstrom; Marlin Eller (1998). Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from inside. N.Y. Holt. ISBN 0-8050-5754-4. Fred Moody (1995). I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year With Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier. Viking. ISBN 0-670-84875-1. Michael A. Cusumano; Richard W. Selby (1995). Microsoft Secrets: How the World's Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets and Manages People. Free Press. ISBN 0-684-85531-3.
   • Right, I mentioned that in the TODO - the person at the time who added said that he would eventually get around to it... but who knows :).RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
6. A very heavy reliance on Microsoft itself for information about Microsoft. Most of the info in the first dozen sources reviewed comes from Microsoft—because publisher info wasn't identified, that wasn't easily noticeable—here is an example (Microsoft was not indicated as the publisher):

   ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m "Key Events In Microsoft History". Retrieved 1 October 2005. (DOC format)

   • Yeah, I added that source before adding the "publisher" key was all that common. And it is true that it relies on the big M for a bit of history - I tried to use other sources in addition to it, but in an ideal world it would use a mixture of hardcover sources not only from MS but also from other primary-esque sources. RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
7. There were two fact tags at review close that should be dealt with: [4]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

1. • Right, any fact tags should be dealt with. Speaking of which there is some info added recently that isn't sourced either and in the criticism section there has always been a back-and-forth around some info.RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sources:

1. http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/4915/ (message board)
   • Yeah...RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
2. http://microsoft.mrmpslc.com/InnovateOnWindowsVista/Default.aspx (what do we do with this?)
   • Yikes, looked like the link changed....RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
3. http://www.internetnews.com/ Not sure about this site?
   • This is pretty legit if I recall correctly - like CNET pretty much.RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Another blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2005/07/14/438777.aspx
   • Now, for that topic (the blibbet (sp?) logo) it works because it is literally from the man himself - first person account. RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Why do we report anything from the Third Way Advertising Blog? http://www.thirdwayblog.com/microsoft/microsoft-your-potential-our-passion.html Reliable sources!
   • Ahhh... and even that was hard to find at the time. Maybe it is an indication that the discussion about slogans should just be omitted almost entirely...RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs attention:

1. "Microsoft 2004 Citizenship Report". Microsoft. Retrieved 9 October 2005. This is a problem (in Corporate structure section) - the current version up is not the 2004 Citizenship report, and doesn't verify the text. Can't find older version in internet archive; this needs to be updated.
   • Yikes.... that's what happens on the internet I guess :).RN 11:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)