Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bill Gates/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:55, 6 April 2008.

[edit] Bill Gates

I'm nominating this article for featured article. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a drive-by nom, Gary has only edited there for one day. -Ravedave (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was a self-nom. I have read the article multiple times over the past year and think that it is WP:FA-worthy. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry we've seen alot of drive by nom's lately. So you plan on handling and fixing anything that comes up then? -Ravedave (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. Looking at my user page you can at least see I am somewhat dedicated. Gary King (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, did you follow the FAC instructions, and post a notice at the article talk page or consult with Everyking prior to nomination?
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Was not aware of this. I'll keep it in mind. Everyking (talk · contribs) has not edited the article in two years. Gary King (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you say "I'll keep it in mind", does that mean you'll report back here on their reaction? TONY (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've already contacted them and am waiting for a reply, but the article has not had any major edits in the past few months besides those made by Gazpacho (talk · contribs), who is blocked indefinitely. Gary King (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may, one issue with "drive bys" was the nominators failing to return to address reviewer comments. Gary is obviously responsive and, if he feels he has adequate understanding of the material and sources, I don’t know that this is something about which we need to kibitz. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
So is it standing or is it being withdrawn? I haven't yet dug into the sourcing... been putting it off in case it gets withdrawn... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can't believe there is no separate section on the article about the person who was/is the wealthiest persn in the world for a decade. The article might not be comprehensive enough for a FA. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is Bill_Gates#Wealth_and_investments. Not much else needs to be said about it, considering it's just a status symbol more than anything else - it's what he does with his money that is worth mentioning. Gary King (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wealth and investments seems to cover it. I would mention that the foundation is "*the* largest transparently operated[2] charitable foundation in the world..." -Ravedave (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Good point - added. Gary King (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Also he was well into his forties when the foundation was founded. I will try to find a source. -Susanlesch (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I hid most of these, left the bug one up mainly so that maybe one of our science gurus can find a better source citation for the information. Given what its sourcing, it isn't a huge worry, but it would be nice to source it to something a bit more reliable. (i.e. upgrade it from "acceptable source" to "great source") Ealdgyth - Talk 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support. The article and Gary Kings's edits both here and elsewhere convince me this can be featured. Windows needs to be mentioned somewhere though. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind this opinion, but on the other hand, Bill Gates had no direct involvement in Windows besides being the company's founder and CEO at the time. I don't think he wrote any of the code in it, either, except for the predecessors of the operating system that are already mentioned in the article. Windows mentions are better suited to Microsoft, whereas Bill Gates is best for his life, how he started Microsoft, and his philanthropic efforts. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Microsoft Office needs to be here, too. In his professional life, Mr. Gates has credentials in both software engineering (and its architecture) and in business (as both a saleperson and CEO). Why not show how Mr. Gates and Microsoft scrambled at COMDEX to sell Windows. They were late to market (Xerox had Star personal computers running long before, Apple was up and running). Surely Triumph of the Nerds could be mentioned. Why not show his strategy shortly thereafter: they were selling software for five operating systems. He wanted Windows to succeed. Why not say that some 88% (didn't look that up but trust Mr. Ballmer has made the number public many times over time) of the world's data is encapsulated in a proprietary data format thanks to the success of Windows. I mean it's like a biography of a Time Life books salesman that doesn't mention his product and why his actions succeeded. Just my thoughts. -Susanlesch (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gary that this belongs (and is already included) in Microsoft and Microsoft Office. If we start adding "just this one thing" (or a couple), the article will quickly become as bloated as a Microsoft product, and the info is already there. (Note also the "criticism" sections listed in the Microsoft article.) Isaacsf (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
OK gentlemen. Must be sunspots. Mr. Gates is mentioned in Microsoft but not in Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office and only a bit in Criticism of Microsoft. I'll think about it. It is not a deal breaker for me at this time, only a peculiar omission. -Susanlesch (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Striking tentative support in favor of oppose because omissions and deletions tell me so. I find Gary King's deletion that Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett have been bridge partners since the 1990s as peculiar as not mentioning Windows. Sorry I wasn't able help you out here. The article has some strong points and I wish you luck with it. -Susanlesch (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This point was mentioned below by another reviewer, and I agree with that person because I don't think that mentioning Gates' personal interests and hobbies such as Bridge is as important as notable as his philanthropy efforts and founding Microsoft. Gary King (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well to be fair, I did suggest that you could keep the mentioning of this (but lose the mentioning of the nicknames—that was trivial) and just merge it into the philanthropy section, since the sentence mentioned their donations. However, an omission of his personal hobby of bridge is certainly not as striking as an omission of his involvement in the creation of Windows or his later work at Microsoft. BuddingJournalist 17:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Although there are things that could be added, this is a good, well-rounded article. Two things I'd like to suggest adding:

  • Mention of Pirates of Silicon Valley and/or Steve Jobs. I would not like to see such mentions in the context of trivia or "in popular culture." I think it can be argued that the interaction of the two companies was partially personal between the two men, as demonstrated in the movie and elsewhere (such as when Microsoft invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Apple way-back-when.
    • This is better suited for Microsoft, since the 'rivalry' between Gates and Jobs may have been exaggerated in that film. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm ok with that. I'm not being argumentative, but here is a relatively current link: [1]
  • Gates is credited with a style of philanthropy which is unusual, in that he generally doesn't just give a pile of money. I've read (but of course can't source off the top of my head) that his style includes challenge grants, so that if a government will commit a certain amount of its resources, then he will match to some degree. This has the benefit of giving the recipient some "ownership" in whatever the task is - and its outcome. I've read over the years that this has been an effective use - and leverage - of money.
    • I'm not too familiar with this but if you can give me a reference then I'll be happy to add it in where appropriate. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Here's some info: [2]
      • And: "Unlike the Wellcome Trust, a research-funding charity which was established in 1936 following the death of Sir Henry Wellcome, the foundation's set-up enables its benefactor to oversee how his money is being spent."[1]

Obviously, I could find refs and put this info in myself; I'll try to do so but thought I'd make the suggestion here. I generally can't stand Microsoft's "contributions" to computing, but I can support the article itself. Isaacsf (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that some people might have grudges against Gates, but that should be directed towards Microsoft more since at least Gates is quite active in philanthropy :) Gary King (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well...I haven't seen a dime :-) Isaacsf (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not comprehensive, among other issues.
Issues resolved, BuddingJournalist 16:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "used proceeds from Lakeside's rummage sale to buy..." For the school? For the club?
    • done Gary King (talk) 04:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • No, it's still ambiguous. "for the school" seems to be modifying "rummage sale". BuddingJournalist 05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've skimmed over the rest of the article, and it seems to skip over large parts of his life. Goes from 1980 to 1998 to 2006 with no real mention of what was going on in between. Surely there can be much more written about his life during those years. For example, what was the extent of his involvement in the creation of Windows?

BuddingJournalist 03:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Update I'm still an oppose with respect to the criteria:
    • 1a: Still many glitches, minor grammatical errors, awkward wording, and sentences that don't give enough context throughout the article. For example (and these are just examples...please don't fix only these):
      • "William H. Gates, Jr." Is it Jr. or Sr.? The text says Jr. but the link goes to Sr.
      • "...he commented that "There was..." Please remember the rules for transitioning to quotations.
      • "Gates also wrote a computer program for his school which scheduled students in classes, after his administrators became aware of his programming abilities." Think about how to rearrange this (it's a simple fix) so that it's less awkward. There is also a simpler and less wordy way to express "a computer program for his school which scheduled students in classes".
        • should be better now Gary King (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "...and collaborated a paper about algorithms with him."
      • "After Intel released the Intel 8080 CPU, Gates knew that this was the only chance he would get to take advantage of the timing," Doesn't explain to those uninitiated why the release of that specific CPU would be perfect timing for them to start a company.
        • should be better now Gary King (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • "...which announced that the OS/2 partnership was over, and to focus energy on developing the Windows NT kernel." Lacking parallelism.
    • 1b: The "Early life" section is now looking more comprehensive (and flows better as a result). The article now gives more insight on his introduction to programming (great anecdote about his modification to the class schedule program!) and his decision to leave college. Unfortunately, the Microsoft section is far from adequate. Just a sampling of questions that are unanswered: How did he deal with the growth of the company? What were his goals for Microsoft at the start? How about the Internet age: what were his thoughts during the mid-90s when the Internet/WWW were rising in importance, and how did he position Microsoft to respond? What was his involvement with the creation of Office? The addition of Windows is scant on any info about Gates' involvement. Surely he had some say in its development, and the decision to "go GUI". There's also been much written about Gates' contributions to the souring of relationships between Apple and Microsoft; surely, some words can be devoted to his involvement in one of the biggest technological rivalries in the world. The article also puts too much emphasis on his personal management style and not enough on what he actually did at Microsoft. BuddingJournalist 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's OK only. I won't oppose, but it's a pity to find glitches still. How about another run-through by a word-nerd? Shouldn't take too long.

  • "During his career at Microsoft Gates"—Can we please have a comma after "Microsoft"? Otherwise, it looks like a new title for his company. Missing commas need an audit throoughout; like this one in the first para too: "... and remains the largest individual shareholder with more than 9 percent of the common stock." Comma required, and changes the meaning to what was intended (not "the largest of the individual shareholders who have more than 9 percent of the common stock".
  • Clunky sentence: "Gates denied the trust fund story in a 1994 interview,[13] and indirectly in his 1995 book The Road Ahead." So the interview contained a direct denial, do we need to work out in reverse. Interviews can yield indirect denials, too.
  • Rather grand to talk of excelling in "the sciences" at grade school.
  • Do we have to hit the link to learn what "SAT" means?
  • Do we need the second "Microsoft's" here? "From Microsoft's founding in 1975 until 2006, Gates had primary responsibility for Microsoft's product strategy."
  • "USD US$30.8 million"—oh dear. And why the "US" again and again in other dollar amounts? MOS says drop it in US-related articles.
  • "third richest man"—missing something? TONY (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • All of the above MOS issues have been addressed. Gary King (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rejoinder—I provided examples of why the whole text needs to be polished up. Only MOS issues specified have been fixed? TONY (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.