Talk:Windows Rally

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Low-importance).

Computing: Networking / Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

This entire page looks fishy. It smells like it has been vomited from Redmond, Washington. No offense to the people who edited this article previously, but it sounds so... unlike Wikipedia. I did try to look at it on http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ but I don't see any direct evidence of M$ doing the editing themselves. Perhaps just fanboys. Can this be cleaned up to give us a NPOV on this technology? Will you please ignore me? 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us by providing instances of where things are problemmatic. We, regular editors, have become used to the content that sometimes such stuff evade our eyes. Thats why we need feedback. --soum ^talk 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of criticism or real summary of Rally is a little striking here, particularly compared to most other articles about Microsoft sources. At the least, it results in an article that's less educational than it should be; at worst it's NPoV to the point of sounding like a Microsoft press release. It doesn't help that the information is unnecessarily technical. Just my opinion, but I don't think this is really a good article as is. Gattsuru (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]