Talk:Standard Ebooks

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Standard Ebooks article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Removal of promotional content[edit]

My edits to this page were flagged with a promotional content template. I have performed the following steps.

Removed all references that linked back to the Standard Ebooks website.
Added additional reference links from other sources.
Removed information about Kindle and Kobo e-reader devices.
Removed the "Unique content" section because it referenced the project's own work on it's website.
Added a "criticisms" section to strengthen the neutrality of the page.

Since I was the editor that made the edits in question, it would be a conflict of interest to remove the promotional template made an edit that referenced the appearance of promotional content. Dl2000, since you commented in the history on this previously, can you review my changes for impartiality? Deldred (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these edits. The promo flag is removed on this basis. The article might still benefit from some expansion such as more secondary coverage (reviews, impact of the platform, etc), but will not belabour things for now. Dl2000 (talk)

Primary source reliance[edit]

This page has been flagged with a Primary Sources tag by @Stuartyeates, and I'm wondering what can be done to ameliorate that. Of the 12 sources cited, 9 are definitely secondary, and a further 2 are archived posts, with only one reference to the live site. This represents basically all of the coverage of the project that I can find on the internet - I don't think that it's realistic to expect additional secondary sourcing, especially given a lack of controversy in those sources.

I would propose that the tag be removed. Smith(talk) 10:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly six months later, and I concur, although we are down to 10 sources. Packer1028 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]