From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

Sources should be WP:RS as well as making specific statements that support the statement to which they are attached:

  • Tucows link] is not a review - all of the text is copied verbatim from the developer's website. Criteria for Tucows ratings isn't clear - seems to be user-supplied. So it's not WP:RS. Moreover, it is used to support a statement about the design of the program.
  • SnapFiles describes this product, does not actually review it (no pros/cons).
  • CNet link is not a review by an established, knowledgeable reviewer, but rather by an anonymous user. TEDickey ( talk) 12:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

Sources should be WP:RS as well as making specific statements that support the statement to which they are attached:

  • Tucows link] is not a review - all of the text is copied verbatim from the developer's website. Criteria for Tucows ratings isn't clear - seems to be user-supplied. So it's not WP:RS. Moreover, it is used to support a statement about the design of the program.
  • SnapFiles describes this product, does not actually review it (no pros/cons).
  • CNet link is not a review by an established, knowledgeable reviewer, but rather by an anonymous user. TEDickey ( talk) 12:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook