This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NPOV:Alabama Cooperative Extension System, written almost entirely by a news and public affairs employee at ACES, so needs some neutral eyes to give it a going-over to check for both neutrality, and layout/content inclusion, etc.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This part of the article is really biased towards/against Microsoft!!!
Microsoft is a very old article with lots of discussion; consider re-reading the passage in question over again before getting upset. If there's still a problem, make a note on the talk page and just let it stew for a month or so; this kind of thing is watched by plenty of people.
Where's the criticism?
It's interspersed throughout the article. Do not add a criticism section; it goes against the style guidelines.
Various online sources say Microsoft's IPO peaked at $29.75 and ended the first trading day at $28, including Microsoft itself; however, the article states it peaked at $29.25 and ended at $27.75, what's the deal?
Sources are conflicting on this. We decided to go with the older published sources.
Why is there a history section when there are already 2 separate articles?
Because according to various comments on featured article nominations articles need to be self contained and at least contain a summary, which is what the history section sets out to do.
Why are there so many references, even on stuff that's common sense? It makes the article hard to edit!
It's due to the slightly controversial nature of the subject matter; what's common sense to one person has often been called into question on this article, so everything - literally - is referenced. Unfortunately, it does make the article rather cumbersome to edit. Such is the nature of Wikipedia.
The page size is really large!
This is due to the heavy amount of detailed referencing with templates, as well as inline comments to editors on certain parts of the article. The actual readable prose size should actually be fairly mediocre.
According to WP:LEAD there must be X paragraphs and there is only Y!
Pay attention to the prose size of the article (not the size when you press edit), it isn't that long. WP:LEAD is general guideline and the gist of it is to summarize everything concisely in the article without teasing the reader about every little detail. It is one of the most refined and tightly written parts of the article.
It isn't comprehensive/the article is really short/it looks like a stub!
This is strictly about the company; generally we don't go beyond a general description about its products unless one is a pivotal point in the company's history as this is covered by daughter articles and simply summarized. We focus mostly on the corporate aspect of the company as those generally don't have daughter articles and are taken care of in articles about a company. What this results in is a comprehensive, heavily summarized article that goes into detail about the documented corporate affairs of Microsoft.
There are no bolded names in Key people in the infobox!
This is really arbitrary and has no standard, so we choose the simplest route for now - none at all.
Even though it's featured, anything that needs particular attention?
"The Culture section seems a bit of a hodge podge - could there be more of a narrative thread?" - From 3rd peer review
"I was a bit surprised that there was not more on Microsoft's sort of decline in the recent past Apple is now bigger in terms of market capitalization (heard this on the radio this morning - NPR). Or how Microsoft was at the forefront in the 1990s with lots of software, but has not done as well with things lately (Google, or Zune vs iPod, etc.)." - From 3rd peer review; need more of a general paragraph of this as well as a sentence about apple most likely. See talk page about major edits for info about apple.
Kevin1234567891111 is trolling. He has made the article invalide and it is unreadable at the moment. Please revert to the version on 18th June 2014. And investigate why he was given the right to edit to begin with.
First of all, there are 30 (!) semicolons in the article. This is overuse. More simple sentences would be much clearer, punchier writing. There is a false beleif among Wikians that long sentences are more sophisticated. The way to be high quality is via research, analysis, organization, and synthesis. Not making sentences too long and not making paragraphs too long! Then also, even when separate ideas are combined into sentences, the logical relationships are not clear (which is poor writing).
"Primarily in the 1990s, critics contend Microsoft used monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying, put unreasonable restrictions in the use of its software, and used misrepresentative marketing tactics; both the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission found the company in violation of antitrust laws."
-what is going on with that sentence? Did the critics contend in the 90s, or did MSFT use in the 90s? If the latter, then why is the modifier dangling so far from what it modifies? IF the former, then the tense is wrong. And then you are using a semicolon to join a thought without spelling out the relation (maybe I could let that pass as you seem to think it a direct followon, but don't do that when the preceding clause is soooo convoluted itself.
BTW, the follow-on sentence, although lacking a semicolon is also a mess ("Known for its interviewing process with obscure questions, various studies and ratings were generally favorable to Microsoft's diversity within the company as well as its overall environmental impact with the exception of the electronics portion of the business.")
-you've meandered amongs about 3+ different somewhat related topics here (interviewing methods, diversity, and environmentals stuff). Why not just do 2, not 3? the environmental thing is an additional librul concern...but not really as closely related as interviewing methods and diversity (both HR concerns).
-Again, you have a dangling modifier, the interviewing process refers to Microsoft, NOT to the studies and ratings that are the subject of the sentence and next to the phrase.
Going further down, I see two sentences in a row that use semicolons. Any book on writing will say to vary the sentence structure. I would LOWER your semicolons OVERALL, but if you insist on using them, then don't have two sentences in a row with them.
And then one of those sentences in a row actually has 3 clauses in a row joined by 2 semicolons, and NOT in a list type way (where they do the work of serial commas), but just joining simple sentences. I've never seen that! 184.108.40.206 (talk)
no other article uses that, what has the infobox with that do do anyway? Egyptian445 (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The template itself has value for adding image, logo, etc. So, are you going to say that it is not proper? What is the purpose of "| image =" value?--AntonTalk 15:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
just because they exist it does not mean we should use it, and you did not answer my question what is the point of having that photo besides that that is possible? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You should not undo until issue solved. The article is already crowded, and it's fine to be in infobox. --AntonTalk 15:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. A suitable infobox image is a must-have because:
It is an FA requirement. Do I need to mention this article is undergoing an FA review right now?
Many tools and apps developed for Wikipedia depend on it for correct rendering: They always render an image and if the infobox does not have one, they will render the first image in the article. In this case, File:1981BillPaul.jpg.
If other articles do not do that, then please correct the problem whenever you see it. Infobox needs to have an appropriate image.
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Mz7 (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)