Talk:ST3000DM001
Add topicLatest comment: 5 years ago by PhotographyEdits in topic GA Review
 | ST3000DM001 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 14, 2021. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from ST3000DM001 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 September 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Class action
[edit]This section seems to be incomplete. It reports only the plaintiff's viewpoint and nothing of the defendant's. Nor is there any report of the ruling. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:ST3000DM001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 16:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Add alt text and WP:UPRIGHT to every image being used.
- "fail rates" → "failure rates"
- "Backblaze [...] were" → "Backblaze [...] was"
- Add "the" before "managing partner".
- "all claims a single class" → "all claims into a single class"
- Archive sources either manually or with this tool.
- Ping when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some additional comments: I've read the article, and it mentions "high failure rate" of this model (that's probably why this drive is notable). But as far as I see, there is no explanation of this. Was it a design flaw? How did the company addressed it (besides of changing the warranty)? Did the company faced any reputation losses because of that (I mean - maybe some big companies decided not to use Seagate's drive in future, etc)? Was this issue (if it was technical) adressed in later models? Artem.G (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Artem.G: I found this article from last week which raises the issue about this specific disk, years later. So I think it is reasonable to conclude it was fixed in later models. It talks about the parking ramp that was constructed from different materials and therefore breaks. Do you think this is a good think to add to the article? The original source is a German data recovery company, who are experts in this field. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it can be included, though I don't know whether it can be considered a reliable source. But anyway, it's an interesting piece, that put some light on that issue. Artem.G (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's good enough. I've included it. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think it can be included, though I don't know whether it can be considered a reliable source. But anyway, it's an interesting piece, that put some light on that issue. Artem.G (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Artem.G: I found this article from last week which raises the issue about this specific disk, years later. So I think it is reasonable to conclude it was fixed in later models. It talks about the parking ramp that was constructed from different materials and therefore breaks. Do you think this is a good think to add to the article? The original source is a German data recovery company, who are experts in this field. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)