The first article is a paid promotion piece, which WP won't accept as an RS.
The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS.
I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either.
Looks like my lateral reading was sub-par (actually I didn't even try, just a quick Google/post).
The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good.
Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion.
I mostly agree. It is distinctly marketing-flavored, although not to a degree that I think should disqualify it alone.
What I think should disqualify it is that it's missing a lot of detail that would make the entry genuinely useful. As it is, it's as useful as a press release. Also, it does appear to have a problem with appropriate references.
Generally speaking, I have a hard time disagreeing with the reasons listed on that page for the rejections.
The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS.
I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either.