Talk:ZipBooks

Review
This article appears to have been written by a marketing person or department. Every sentence has "ZipBooks" in it (which is actually a bad thing, for all you SEO types out there, since it mentions the topic far too often). The article needs to be completely rewritten to remove all the peacock terms.

Reviewing the sources used in the article

 * Can be used for establishing notability
 * This one is a very weak one for notability as it's a brief mention. I would want at least two other sources to go with it.
 * This is a solid reliable source and helps establish reliability.
 * Another very solid reliable source and helps establish notability. It's also a negative review, which helps keep it balanced.
 * This is a weak source (four paragraphs), but could be combined with multiple other sources in helping to establish notability.


 * Not acceptable for establishing notability
 * This one seems to be an installation guide more than anything else. I don't think it would be acceptable for establishing notability.
 * Just a ranking list with a very passing mention. It is #1 on the list, but has no real coverage of the product or the company.
 * A list of grant recipients. Does not establish notability.


 * Unknown usability / Behind pay wall
 * Behind a pay wall.
 * Behind a pay wall.
 * I do not know the reliability of this site.
 * Just a store listing.
 * Just a store listing.
 * Just a store listing.
 * Just a store listing.
 * Just a store listing.

Take that how you will. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that the above was written before I rewrote the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 02:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)