Wikipedia:Peer review/Bill Gates/archive1

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)
 * 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) for several years to ...enough money that 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)
 * I've fixed a few of the things you mentioned, better now? — Wackymacs 17:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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? WhiteNight T 06:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good image to use to represent what Gates used to look like when he was younger, and its a very widely used image as well. It should be kept, and I don't see how it invites flamewars at all. If this article ever gets featured and put on the Main Page it can be semi-protected. — Wackymacs 08:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Honest question - why should it be used over images like the ones with him and paul allen in the university or at a museam (such as http://www.hnf.de/images/museum/136_1374.jpg)? There are just as widespread and I think an image like that more accurately potrays the issue (I mean, he isn't famous for speeding, he is famous for working on computers and maybe the antitrust stuff). Anyway I won't push the issue much more - great work on the article BTW!!!  I remember back in the day on the mailing list when I was literally chopping off half the article at a time it was so bad... WhiteNight T 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The current image used links in with the context, which is the whole point in using it, and the copyright status of the other image that could be used is unclear. Thanks for the comment, yeah the article did used to be very bad. Still lots of work to be done though. — Wackymacs 09:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article, overall, looks good; but what caught my suprise was that he is a Scottish-American. What, out of general interest and could be interesting to the article, is his connection with Scotland? Thanks -  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 19:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)