" 
 :Hi. 

 :It is true that this article has issues that even prevent it from becoming GA but they can be resolved. 
 :*First, overcapitalization: ""Windows Division, Server and Tools, Online Services Division"" must be ""Windows division, server and tools, online services division"" (without me attempting resolve its length and clunkiness problems). The first sentence reads: ""The company's Client division produces..."" in which ""Client"" must become ""client"". One thing that article writers must know is that Wikipedia MOS:CAPS, for a large part, does care how everyone writes a word; it only cares whether the majority think it is a definite noun or not 
 :*Second, § 2011–present: Rebranding, Windows 8, and Surface suddenly mentions Kinect without context. 
 :*Third, books must not be Wikilinked unless their content is available online. (Google Books preview is okay.) 
 :*Fourth, images are problematic. Some has gone overzealous and shoved five images into § 2011–present alone. The image caption in § Criticism reads ""BadVista and Defective by Design groups protest against Windows Vista"" but I only see BadVista in the image. 

 :Next we go to FA level issues. Referencing style inconsistencies and problems are prevalent. 
 :*Several sources are tagged as dead links 
 :* and  are not properly populated 
 :*Item 104 contain three different citations 
 :*Publishers are sometimes written in parentheses, [e.g. ZDNet (CBS Interactive)] and sometimes outside (e.g. CNET. CBS Interactive.) That's probably because  and  are mingled in the article. 
 :*I see one instance of bogus author: ""CNET News.com Staff"" 
 :*And, my God, there are naked links and plain links there! 

 :These are what meet the eye and must be resolved in peer review stage. 

 :Best regards, 
 :  "