Talk:Intel

Latest comment: 23 hours ago by Maxeto0910 in topic Lead section - too long
Former good articleIntel was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 13, 2009.
Current status: Delisted good article

proposed section on neuromorphic computng developments

edit

i don't see intel loihi mentioned anywhere

on the other hand, self-driving cars and fog computing are mentioned.

i think it would be a good idea to include both of these in a section titled artificial intelligence and to add neuromorphic engineering (Physical neural network) as a subsection.

Lead section - too long

edit

The lead section is (according to the lead section guideline) way too long. The last two paragraphs belong into the product and market history section. They are not of fundamental importance for the topic of the article and therefore appear subjective and undifferentiated or non-objective in the lead section. Bildersindtoll (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't say that the lead is way too long.

Firstly, the Wikipedia guideline is merely a rule of thumb, and the length of an article's lead section depends on the total length of the article, and since this article is quite long, the lead length seems more or less appropriate to me in relation. For example, Wii and India are both featured articles and have very long lead sections too since their articles are long as well. Secondly, I'd argue that the lead already summarizes the most important aspects of Intel's history and market position relatively concisely (i.e., it's not overly detailed while at the same time doesn't leave out key aspects). Thirdly, I don't think the last two paragraphs are biased, as they merely reflect what the sources say, and I think neither should be removed, as the lead should not only summarize Intel's glory years, but its complete history. Ignoring Intel's recent history would indeed be unneutral. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply