This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Note
Sorry
User:Frayae that we overlapped there; I took your de-tagging to be a sign of "done" and so made a sweep, removing unsouced content, self-sourced content, and some puffery. Thanks for your work, and my apologies again.
Jytdog (
talk)
21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem, I was finding it hard to deal with all of it myself. You coming in and cleaning up the bulk of the article was very useful. —
Frayæ (
Talk/
Spjall)
21:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Why the primary sources flag at the top of the article? As far as I can tell, the only primary sources still in use are for infobox figures and other fundamental information.
Blanking the entire pre-2010 history feels like overkill, although it certainly needed more sources. If I dug up references, would you consider adding part of it back in?
Similarly, unsure why the entire "Software" subsection of Products didn't make the cut.
Finally, in response to
Compassionate727's flag above about including too many items in the Products and Brands parameters, I'd like to propose the following:
Products: [[Hard disk drives]] <br/> [[NAND Flash]]-based storage devices <br/> Storage systems
Brands: WD <br/> SanDisk <br/> G-Technology SanDisk is referred to as a Western Digital brand in several sources, e.g.
here.
Hi Mary, nice to work with you. The history was entirely unsourced or self-sourced. I don't know what it was, but it wasn't well-sourced NPOV content expressing accepted knowledge. This page cannot serve as a catalog of all their products and software, per
WP:NOTCATALOG and
WP:NOTMANUAL. This is about a business and it should be the story of the company, showing their challenges and how they failed and succeeded. Please think Harvard Business Review case study (as close as we can with the available secondary sources), not "company website". About the tag, there are still low quality churnalism refs..
Jytdog (
talk)
03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@
MaryGaulke: Sorry for the late response. The software section wasn't added because I never looked at it; I wanted you to get back to me about some of my other concerns first. As for point #2, we can add anything you have reliable sources for that's of encyclopedic value (the latter being an editorial judgement). Procure some sources and we can consider it. The fourth request should be done momentarily. —
Compassionate727(
T·
C)13:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Jytdog and
Compassionate727: Thank you both, and I apologize for my own delay in replying. I will review the quality of the sources currently in the article, reevaluate the deleted History and Software content, and circle back with a new request. Again, thank you both for your feedback and time.
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
COI edit request: Cleaning up low-quality sources
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Hi all! In response to the primary sources flag at the top of this article, I've conducted a review of all the sources currently in use in the article and I'd like to suggest some updates and replacements for some of the weaker ones:
History:
I think this sentence and ref can be deleted entirely: In the summer of 2017, Western Digital licensed the
Fusion-io/
SanDisk ION Accelerator software to One Stop Systems.[1]
Not done as comments on RSN indicate that while TechPowerUp is not a high-quality source, it's usable and better than Myce.
feminist (
talk)
04:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
[4] is a backup source provided in addition to [5] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
Again: [6] is a backup source provided in addition to [7] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
And one more time: [8] is a backup source provided in addition to [9] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
As far as I can tell, all the other sources in this article are higher quality, provide a balanced perspective, and come from known publications, but please let me know if I missed something. @
Jytdog: pinging you in particular since you were the one who added the flag, but anyone else should feel free to chime in too, and I'll open an edit request in 48 hours as well if this doesn't receive a response. Thank you!
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@
Feminist: Thanks for your help! I assume the primary sources flag was retained because of the reinstatement of the pre-2009 history content? If so, I'll start working on tracking down new sources for that content. Could you please also clarify why the prose flag was added, so I can address that? Thanks again.
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I restored the content because an article on a company should not
focus on its recent history. But honestly I think it would be best if the whole article (or, at least, the History section) were substantially rewritten to a higher standard. I note the numerous unsourced statements in the article; I am not going to tag-bomb them with {{cn}} as this rarely helps.
For COI edits, this would usually involve the COI editor writing a draft containing the proposed rewrite (or sections of it), for reviewers to check. Compare this with other
good or
featured articles on companies. See
Talk:Billboard (magazine)#Draft for an example of how this is done by another COI editor.
feminist (
talk)
04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Note
Sorry
User:Frayae that we overlapped there; I took your de-tagging to be a sign of "done" and so made a sweep, removing unsouced content, self-sourced content, and some puffery. Thanks for your work, and my apologies again.
Jytdog (
talk)
21:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a problem, I was finding it hard to deal with all of it myself. You coming in and cleaning up the bulk of the article was very useful. —
Frayæ (
Talk/
Spjall)
21:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Why the primary sources flag at the top of the article? As far as I can tell, the only primary sources still in use are for infobox figures and other fundamental information.
Blanking the entire pre-2010 history feels like overkill, although it certainly needed more sources. If I dug up references, would you consider adding part of it back in?
Similarly, unsure why the entire "Software" subsection of Products didn't make the cut.
Finally, in response to
Compassionate727's flag above about including too many items in the Products and Brands parameters, I'd like to propose the following:
Products: [[Hard disk drives]] <br/> [[NAND Flash]]-based storage devices <br/> Storage systems
Brands: WD <br/> SanDisk <br/> G-Technology SanDisk is referred to as a Western Digital brand in several sources, e.g.
here.
Hi Mary, nice to work with you. The history was entirely unsourced or self-sourced. I don't know what it was, but it wasn't well-sourced NPOV content expressing accepted knowledge. This page cannot serve as a catalog of all their products and software, per
WP:NOTCATALOG and
WP:NOTMANUAL. This is about a business and it should be the story of the company, showing their challenges and how they failed and succeeded. Please think Harvard Business Review case study (as close as we can with the available secondary sources), not "company website". About the tag, there are still low quality churnalism refs..
Jytdog (
talk)
03:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@
MaryGaulke: Sorry for the late response. The software section wasn't added because I never looked at it; I wanted you to get back to me about some of my other concerns first. As for point #2, we can add anything you have reliable sources for that's of encyclopedic value (the latter being an editorial judgement). Procure some sources and we can consider it. The fourth request should be done momentarily. —
Compassionate727(
T·
C)13:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@
Jytdog and
Compassionate727: Thank you both, and I apologize for my own delay in replying. I will review the quality of the sources currently in the article, reevaluate the deleted History and Software content, and circle back with a new request. Again, thank you both for your feedback and time.
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
04:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
COI edit request: Cleaning up low-quality sources
This
edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Hi all! In response to the primary sources flag at the top of this article, I've conducted a review of all the sources currently in use in the article and I'd like to suggest some updates and replacements for some of the weaker ones:
History:
I think this sentence and ref can be deleted entirely: In the summer of 2017, Western Digital licensed the
Fusion-io/
SanDisk ION Accelerator software to One Stop Systems.[1]
Not done as comments on RSN indicate that while TechPowerUp is not a high-quality source, it's usable and better than Myce.
feminist (
talk)
04:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
[4] is a backup source provided in addition to [5] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
Again: [6] is a backup source provided in addition to [7] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
And one more time: [8] is a backup source provided in addition to [9] alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
As far as I can tell, all the other sources in this article are higher quality, provide a balanced perspective, and come from known publications, but please let me know if I missed something. @
Jytdog: pinging you in particular since you were the one who added the flag, but anyone else should feel free to chime in too, and I'll open an edit request in 48 hours as well if this doesn't receive a response. Thank you!
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
19:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@
Feminist: Thanks for your help! I assume the primary sources flag was retained because of the reinstatement of the pre-2009 history content? If so, I'll start working on tracking down new sources for that content. Could you please also clarify why the prose flag was added, so I can address that? Thanks again.
Mary Gaulke (
talk)
19:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I restored the content because an article on a company should not
focus on its recent history. But honestly I think it would be best if the whole article (or, at least, the History section) were substantially rewritten to a higher standard. I note the numerous unsourced statements in the article; I am not going to tag-bomb them with {{cn}} as this rarely helps.
For COI edits, this would usually involve the COI editor writing a draft containing the proposed rewrite (or sections of it), for reviewers to check. Compare this with other
good or
featured articles on companies. See
Talk:Billboard (magazine)#Draft for an example of how this is done by another COI editor.
feminist (
talk)
04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)