Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Yes, that's right - Microsoft. The history I think is fairly decent and there's a decent amount of info here.

What should we do here? --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Object subject matter is too evil to be made an FA. Other than that, there's a stub section at the end of the article, and the office picture needs a caption.Borisblue 08:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Uhhhh.... thanks... I guess. I should note that this is not WP:FAC, so there's nothing really to object to, heheh --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Good job. I parsed down the caption a little. Sure you can't do anything about the excessive amount of evil emnating from the article? :) Borisblue 07:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks pretty decent overall — a reasonable amount of depth for a top-level article. But I'd like to see some coverage of Microsoft's reputation as being a "velvet sweatshop". Also I didn't find any mention of the legal issues concerning temp workers that was significant a few years back. Finally I'm a little wary about the speculation in the "Current business activities" section. Do you have anything to back that up? Quotes from analysts, for example? Thanks. — RJH 21:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The legal issues/reputation etc. are discussed in common criticisms of Microsoft (although I don't remember seeing the sweatshop one). Also, the article as a whole needs more references for the history section, i.e.. I think if there is too much speculation in the "Current business activities" section I can just remove some of it that isn't referenced. Thanks --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well then I think the "Criticisms" section needs to be a better synopsis of the common criticisms of Microsoft page, even if they are just one-liners. There are hundreds of references to "velvet sweatshop" and "microsoft" in google. :) — RJH 14:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the criticisms section is rather drab. Scott Ritchie 22:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree of course... also, I'd like it to be more like the IBM article... although reading that it sounds VERY biased. Anyway - question - would everyone like the legal issues and critism layout more like the Apple Computer page? --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I expanded criticisms to what I believe is a good comprimise and changed the layout a bit. There's still a lot to be done. Anyway, any comments? --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)