Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Gates/archive1

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Bill Gates

We all know who this is. Should be featured status, Very close to FA, suggestions/comments? —

Wackymacs 19:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Here's my take:
  • Make sure footnotes are done consistently. The book reference under =Early Life= should be an inline citation.
  • =Early Life= has a lot of short paragraphs that should be merged or expanded.
  • The dropping out of Harvard is mentioned in both =Early Life= and =Microsoft=, once may be enough
  • Watch the Weasel Words: "Some people have accused him of being inconsistent in this regard. It has also been pointed out that Microsoft often produces products that incorporate ideas developed outside Microsoft"
  • Change Microsoft eventually went on to be the largest software company in the world, earning Gates enough money to make him the wealthiest person in the world (according to
    Forbes Magazine
    named him the wealthiest person in the world for several years
  • "Journalist Greg Palast suggests that the Gates Foundation..." should be footnoted.
  • I should have been more clear. I meant that this needs a source.
  • "a survey of philanthropy by The Economist..." should be footnoted
  • =popular culture= reads like a somewhat random collection of references. Try to organize around the archetypes that are mentioned.
  • I don't think that articles linked in the text need to be included in the see also section, but I don't know if that's in the MoS or not.
  • Works used as references should be separated from those that are merely further reading. If all those books under =sources and further reading= were used as references, the section should simply be called =References=. We can assume any book used as a reference is worth looking at for further inquiry
  • Footnotes are rather unevenly distributed between sections. Some have many, some have none.
  • Generally, the prose is a bit choppy. Sentence structure should more varied. Don't always start the sentence with the subject.

I hope all these points don't come across as negative. The information is generally very good. I think that if these points are addressed, we could definitely have an FA here. - The Catfish 22:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed a few of the things you mentioned, better now? —
Wackymacs 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's a bit better now. I've struck a couple and clarified one and added another below. - The Catfish 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: "In contrast, his former associate Paul Allen has used his wealth in perhaps a more typical manner—owning sports teams, vintage airplanes, and multiple residences." We need a source that says that this is the typical use of wealth, rather than simply asserting it. - The Catfish 22:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that image of a mugshot seriously adding anything to the article? Even if it is isn't there something else we can put there that is more appropriate for that section that adds more to the article and will be less inviting to flamewars?
    T | @ | C 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]