Talk:Microsoft Product Activation/Archive 1

Documentation on merger between Windows Product Activation and Microsoft Product Activation[edit]

A few days ago, I decided to rewrite the Windows Product Activation article. Among the changes I made was making it Microsoft-specific rather than Windows-specific - after all, Office has activation as well. Unfortunately, I made all these changes in my userspace, rather than adding the new content directly to the Windows Product Activation article. I thus embarked on the following complex process:

I first deleted the former redirect at Microsoft Product Activation;
I then moved the page from my userspace here;
I then conducted a merge from Windows Product Activation into this article.

Thus, for the purposes of attribution, it is important to note that in the template above, the page merger diff was not the only example where content was moved from Windows Product Activation to Microsoft Product Activation; rather, this process took place throughout the page's history, in some cases combined with me adding my own new content. Thanks, --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 17:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

I don't think it's in the spirit of WP:FAIRUSE to have around five non-free images on a page discussing one small component of Windows and Office. I've gone through and deleted all the images, then re-uploaded only two images that specifically show Microsoft Product Activation in action - one for Windows, and one for Office. If anyone disagrees, please discuss - I might be wrong about all this. Thanks, --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 22:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Why do inline citations use a custom weird format? Why not use {{citation}}? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that that was necessary... I suppose I could change them, but is it necessary? --Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 23:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To my great surprise it isn't. Actually I wrote about template as ref #27 isn't a link, and templates help with such situations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Product Activation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is not bad where it exists, but a few places in the article consist of lists and tables. An effort should be made to use prose to describe these instead. If that's not practical, then at least write some prose to motivate their inclusion. For example, the "Usage" section consists of tables only. A general reader needs some text description at the beginning to know what is in the tables and why they should look there. The first section should be called "Activation process" instead of just "Process" to make it more description. The same principle should be applied to other sections, so that when a general reader looks at the table of contents, they have a better idea of what is contained in each section.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Far too much of the article relies on non-independent primary sources, from the Microsoft Corporation itself. I understand the inclusion of these sources, but I think to bring this to GA status, you'll need independent references for some of the activation process and basic information.
Also, some of the references do not support what is being claimed. For example, in the lead it says, "The procedure enforces compliance with the program's end-user license agreement by transmitting information about both the product key used to install the program and the user's computer hardware to Microsoft, inhibiting or completely preventing the use of the program until the validity of its license is confirmed." Some of this is supported by the cited reference, but it doesn't discuss how the procedure inhibits or prevents use...at least not in that type of language. This is the kind of thing eluded to above - Microsoft Corp words things in "corporate euphemisms" in their documentation. This is why I think you should get refs independent of Microsoft to verify reliability of claims.

It appears that all the references were typed from scratch without using a citation template. That's fine, but it has appeared to result in some formatting errors. For example, ref #27 bleeds into the adjacent column - on my screen, at least.

I HIGHLY recommend that you find archived versions of the webpages to put into the citations, using [1], for example. When I used the "external links" tool (above, right), several pages had errors. Click on that to see the report.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article is not broad enough for GA status yet. Microsoft has been extensively covered by historians and journalists for decades, so I would expect this topic to have been discussed. I'm thinking mainly of the background and history of the activation process. A general reader will come to this article wanting to know why Microsoft invented and implemented this process. Was it in response to, or in anticipation of, economic losses? Were there specific cases involved? How has the process changed over time? Discuss more about the geographical limitations eluded to in the table. While the article doesn't have to be completely comprehensive for GA status, background and history are a minimum for basic broadness.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Mostly NPOV, except for the extensive use of MS Corp documentation to reference article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No edit wars. Looks good.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images have fair use rationales - you do need to indicate in the summary of each image that the MS Corp owns the copyright. Both images need to have alt-text.
Overall: This is a reasonably good start to the subject, and mainly requires some expansion of history and background, and inclusion of additional sources independent of MS Corp to bring it up to GA status. I'm putting it on hold for 7 days for improvements to be made. If improvements aren't made, the article can be renominated at a later date.
Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

On the file description page of each image, the licensing template makes it clear that Microsoft owns the copyright. Both images now have alternate text (just the caption rewritten in the alt attribute). --— Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I'll be away for the next few days, and so this GA might end up being closed without any significant improvements. Once I have time, I'll fix the problems, then re-nominate for GA. --— Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind keeping it open longer, if you are reasonably sure you'll return to it. However, I don't want to keep it open longer than a couple weeks. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been eleven days without any updates...what is the status of the article? Will improvements be made in the next few days? AstroCog (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something rather serious has come up. I won't be able to edit for a while. You may as well close the GA - I will improve the article when I can and renominate when the above concerns are addressed. --— Michael Kourlas^{talk – contribs} 16:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Take care, and good luck with the article in the future. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Office 2000 need activation?[edit]

The Office 2000 article on Wikipedia mentions that activation is needed in the later editions of Office 2000. Should that be mentioned in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.10.11 (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

A quick web search for "Windows 8.1 KMS activator" shows that new methods have been developed to defeat the latest and greatest protection... This article doesn't even mention KMS, even though it's a rather old MS activation method, which has migrated from the enterprise towards the consumer with Windows 8. 86.121.18.250 (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this amusing bit ("Microsoft mistakenly gifts Windows 8 pirates with a free activation key") is not mentioned. 86.121.18.250 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nothing in this article about Windows Store apps [2]. 86.121.18.250 (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Microsoft Product Activation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]