User:MaryGaulke/sandbox/new Western Digital refs

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.
 * 2) is a backup source provided in addition to alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
 * 3) Again: is a backup source provided in addition to alongside the same information, so if it's objectionable, it can just be removed.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) If is too weak to include, I recommend simply removing that sentence.
 * 1) To replace, I suggest.

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. Thank you!