Talk:Western Digital/Archives/2018

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. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi all! And thank you for getting involved here. A few notes/questions:
 * 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 's flag above about including too many items in the Products and Brands parameters, I'd like to propose the following:
 * Products:
 * Brands:  SanDisk is referred to as a Western Digital brand in several sources, e.g. here.
 * Thank you again for your help and consideration. Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * # 4 has been ✅. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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
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: Products: Corporate affairs:
 * 1) I think this sentence and ref can be deleted entirely:
 * 1) In addition to or to replace, I suggest.
 * I consider TechPowerUp to be more reliable than Myce, but I have started a discussion at WP:RSN to gauge its reliability. feminist (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ 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)
 * 1) is a backup source provided in addition to alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
 * 2) Again: is a backup source provided in addition to alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
 * ✅ feminist (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) And one more time: is a backup source provided in addition to alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
 * ✅ feminist (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) If is too weak to include, I recommend simply removing that sentence.
 * ✅ feminist (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) To replace, I suggest.
 * ✅ I consider AnandTech to be a reliable source for computer hardware, but I added the Reuters source as well. feminist (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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. 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)
 * 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) for an example of how this is done by another COI editor. feminist (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 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) for an example of how this is done by another COI editor. feminist (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)