Wikipedia:Peer review/IRiver/archive1

IRiver

What do other think on the issue of whether this article should contain a detailed list of, arguably non-notable, products produced by the company? TigerShark 02:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not? The company made them, and the company is notable enough to have an article. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But shouldn't all of the information that is included in an encyclopedia be of encyclopedic value itself, not just related to something of encyclopedic value? I wonder what rules we should use to draw the line.

There is also the issue of duplication of information and keeping one source in sync with the other. With the issue of Products, there is already a link on the page that will take the reader to iRiver's product page. Do we need to duplicate this information on the page? TigerShark 13:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd say ditch the products. The list is already out-of-date and would require constant updating by Wikipedians. The company is much better equipped to handle that on their own website, so a link to the product page would suffice. Second thought: OR, rewrite the products section so it doesn't read as one big advertisement: try to pick out some notable products and describe what's special about them.--Plek 20:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've had a look at it, I'd suggest the same thing. What about a company history section? That would be good also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I realise that this is not the main issue, but the article states that iRiver's products have "more features than others on the market". Can we have some clarification of this? This sounds pretty dubious to me! Oh, we need references. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:14, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)