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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to 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.
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 page can be improved once this page meets copyright requirements and the business section is updated.JerrySa1 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I've never tried to interpret the results of an Earwig report, but I was surprised by your copyvio finding and had a look. Are you referring to Earwig's "99.0% confidence match with academia.edu/9869063/International_Business_Environment"? That's a 2014 student piece that is clearly a copy of the Wikipedia article; the history section of the Wikipedia article has been stable since before 2014, and the student work cites the Wikipedia article as one of its sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't notice the fact Wikipedia was cited. There's still the issue of the second area though. That's still not enough for quickfail, so this needs an actual review.JerrySa1 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@JerrySa1: I think ActiveBrains also copied from Wikipedia. If the section had been copied from ActiveBrains, the article history at Wikipedia would show the section being created in only one or two edits by the editor violating the copyright. In fact the history shows that the section has been worked on by many editors over several years. The phrase "As of December 2009" is also strong evidence, I think, as it's hard to see how a writer at ActiveBrains would use that wording if it were not copied from Wikipedia. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@John of Reading: Yes, I see that. The Justice department piece may of been plagiarized to but this seems like a quite moot point. Either way the review is closed, and if it is opened again I don't know when the submitter will respond if at all. This and another review were his first edits since 2014, so I am unsure if he can even answer any points.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposing replacement of headquarters picture
I took a photograph of Building 92 (the visitor center) this year in May which was in full sunlight with the sun to my back and in which the current Microsoft logo is clearly visible, unlike the current photo of Building 17 in the infobox which was taken on an overcast day and does not show the logo. Any objections before I upload that photo and transfer the infobox photo to the article on the Microsoft headquarters campus? --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Microsoft current history is mostly taken from the consumer perspective. It might be also relevant to consider the business/revenue perspective. In the last years, we saw a clear shift of the business model from Microsoft, moving from a Software provider (Windows, Office) to a Service provider (Azure, Office-365), especially in the cloud! According to , most growing revenue at Microsoft are coming from services in the cloud!
Thus, I would suggest the article owner/moderator to rewrite a bit the current period "2014-present" of Microsoft history, as also the dedicated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)