Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft/archive3

Microsoft

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is perhaps slightly unusual for peer review, but this article is a current featured article (of which I am [or was] one of the primary editors). Listing here because I want to bring it back up to current standards if it doesn't meet them. It does have some issues/concerns which I'll try to summarize here:

1. Biggest issue is the points raised years ago at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Microsoft/archive1 that unfortunately mostly went unnoticed about reliable sourcing. To summarize, there are a lot of places where Microsoft itself is used as the source in history, and another site that perhaps may or may not meet current RS standards. Also mentioned were specific pages in books needed - I noticed there is a template for that now. Keep in mind years ago all this was perfectably acceptable, things have just changed over time - I mainly would like some pointers as to how to fix it, in addition to the problems themselves.
2. Another one is what to do with the history section itself - it's been the sticking point for a lot of people. Years ago, the result was to create a seperate article for the company history, summarize it, and then also refer to Windows' history as well. Also, it's recently been raised again - any comments on what to do here?
3. There's a section on environmental impact that is still quite large that wasn't there years ago. I've de-listified it and condensed it massively already, but I still feel it's too long, and probably should be part of corporate culture.
4. In general I feel some sections such as diversity could be condensed and summarized a bit more, but I'd like some feedback on this.
5. Does the lead need to summarize just a bit more about the company culture and environment section, and how does it fare in general? I know lead requirements tend to change a lot over time.
6. Finally, any other commments, especially concerning changes in the manual of style (MOS) and FA criteria would be appreciated.

Thank you in advance, and happy wiking :). RN 02:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, did a lot of massive reworking in some parts - trimmed out the product divisions to the bare essentials, trimmed a little trivia out of history, cleaned up the enviroment section and moved it into corporate. Anyway, feedback welcome. Also down to 28-29 kB in readable prose size according to automated scripts, as well as semi-automated ref cleanup. 08:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this. I agree that the refs for this should be much be better and have some other suggestions for improvement. I also apologize for the delay - I had a review started and lost it. I am looking at this as if it were at FAC now.

• I looked on Amazon.com and there are many books on Microsoft and its history listed there. I think that the article should use more book sources and should rely less on Microsoft itself (though some use of primary sources may be unavoidable). If this were at FAC I think the lack of use of modern book sources would be a real issue.
• I also agree that page numbers for books should be included - I only saw two books used (but I may have missed some) in the current article
• I think the history section is decent as is, though I have some suggestions there (see below). This follows WP:Summary style and I would leave it in at about its current length or slightly longer.
• Not sure about making this shorter
• I was a bit surprised that this article was as short as it is - I think if thematically it makes sense to combione things, then do it. But just to save space, no.
• I think the lead could be a bit longer - per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to 4 paragraphs long. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• There are places in the History section where there could be a bit more context provided for the reader. For example in After the demonstration in March 1975, MITS agreed to distribute [Gates'] Altair BASIC. I would add Gates' to be a bit clearer.
• Or the abbreviation OS is not explained prior to its use in Due to various factors, such as MS-DOS's available software selection, Microsoft eventually became the leading PC OS vendor.[5][6] I think OEM needs to be spelled out too, as well as "APIs".
• I think the article could use images of Bill Gates, and perhaps Steve Ballmer. I seems odd that co-founder Paul Allen is mentioned only in the infobox
• Watch tenses = why are there both past and present tenses in Microsoft Office 2007, released at the same time, features a "Ribbon" user interface which is a significant departure from its predecessors. (Why not all past?)
• I think the Product divisions section could use more refs - two of the paragraphs have no refs at all (I think a primary source would be OK here, by the way)
• This sentence seems a bit antiquated In April 2004 Microsoft launched a community site for developers and users, titled Channel9, which provides many modern features such as a wiki and an Internet forum.[47] "many modern features"?
• Eating dogfood sentence has a direct quote and needs a ref at the end per the MOS.
• The Culture section seems a bit of a hodge podge - could there be more of a narrative thread?
• The caption "Photo of Microsoft's RedWest campus." is pretty weak and does not explain what RedWest is.
• Awkward The company makes use of alternative forms of transit, including created one of the worlds largest private bus systems (the "Connector") as well as encouraging employees and others to use regional public mass transit via subsidising fares. And is it the the "Connector" or "Suttle Connect"?
• Spell out LEED, HOV, TCO
• I really do not know what this means In 2004, Microsoft commissioned research firms that found that Windows Server 2003 TCO was lower than Linux due to its ease of use, resulting in less work and lower staff costs.[72]
• 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.).

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the helpful comments. Just to answer a couple questions,

• Microsoft hasn't really declined (well, I mention they are stagnent in the stock/corporate section), Apple has just got bigger in (sort of) a seperate area and recently passed them in stock value only. I even wrote a paragraph it (sourced and everything), but later moved it to the talk page as it was a bit nascent to put in yet. You are right in general in regard to thier non-software business though... thanks for the idea

• I just know that I have read some comments along this line and did not see much on it in the article. Thanks for the clarification, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I read several of those history books on Microsoft.... they were really bad; failed to give specific dates, contained glaring inaccuracies, and in general a lot only go up to 1993. I have yet to a find decent general book on the subject for the history section, so I rewrote it using Microsoft mostly for uncontroversial dates I can't find a WP:RS for and WP:RS online news reports for the rest. Also, keep in mind around half those books are self-published, which is 1000x worse then using Microsoft itself according to wikipedia rules. Too bad, because some of the self-published ones are really good. Really the best sources are these are the old magazines like BYTE that are unfortunately hard to get at; I'm in a metro area now so I might finally be able to find them at the local library though. Currently, I don't think the article is that bad on sources though (I was rewriting it during the peer review). [IE I removed or replaced all the years-old book references that failed to mention page numbers].

• If a self-published book is by a noted expert in the field, then it may be a RS. I use self-published books on lumber railroad history in Pennsylvania - since the history museum in the author's county is named for him, and the books are cited by other authors, they meet WP:RS Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• In regards to the article sie, it was over double the size before I worked on it yet again. The new size is mostly the result of a lot of massive text condension, especially in the history section. You're definately right about paul allen though, not sure what happened with that.
• Technically, it meets WP:LEAD and doesn't meet the suggestion for 4 paragraphs as its currently under 22,000 characters in readable prose. However, I'll take another look at it to see if I missed anything.
• I used the 10-K form as a general ref for product divisions, that's why it's worded so carefully; it's mentioned in the references section :).

• In that case I owuld just cite it at the nd of each paragraph without a ref now (where applicable). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the comments, I'll see what I can do. You can also see the "major" stuff removed on the end of talk page and reasons why (mostly obvious). RN 05:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:NocturneNoir

Well, since I'm here, I might as well.

• History begins right out of the blue. Despite their desire to sell a BASIC interpreter, Paul Allen and Bill Gates concluded it was not possible until the Intel 8080 microprocessor launched in 1974; they called several companies, none were interested until the January 1975 issue of Popular Electronics. has absolutely zero context, even when the lead is looked at.
  • On that note, the entire first paragraph has thoroughly lost me.
• Placement of images with regard to headings seems haphazard.

More later. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 21:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point about the context. Could you elaborate on the images? Are the captions are a problem - the placement was actually carefully considered - although perhaps for all resolutions, although "Culture" is really a work in progress ATM. You don't have to respond, I'll reconsider them regardless. RN 22:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Odd, the pictures look fine on this computer. I was having an issue with the "1985–1994: Windows and Office" section header; it was sitting smack dab between two images, which looked mighty off to me. I'll see if I can snap a screenshot tomorrow to show you. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 23:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, first paragraph rewrote - looks a lot better to me, got rid of a lot of the jargon and tried to explain the early early days a bit. Still hard to follow?

Anyway, basically all that's left at this point is:

1. Complete rewrite of Culture section using some sources I'm compiling.
2. Mention Microsoft's profits basically coming Windows and Office still and its uncertain future as a paragraph in history (this is a MAYBY, it will mentioned in some form in the upcoming business culture section as they are rather linked) Ryan Norton 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)