Needs more info

edit

Article is objective, yet reads a bit with a marketing kind of tone: it's overly effusive. It is surely a stub and could really use some technical details. There is no mention of or comparison with competing products in the space, no user stories, no history of development, no criticisms. These things could be unknown, but I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgurtz (talkcontribs) 02:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Online Services section needs improvement

edit

The Online Services section would need some improvement. The only source it references (and links to) is the Google Accounts landing page (for which you need to create an account to access), which is presumably going to not be accessible soon. This is could be a violation of Wikipedia:No original research as it is describing a product, although anyone who clicks on the link (before the services shutdowns at least) can pretty easily verify it. It would be better if it could link to a proper site reviewing the product.

I'm ambivalent in removing the source and adding Template:Unreferenced section as it still is technically a source? Floine (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've tagged it with {{third-party inline}}. It shouldn't be too difficult to find a source that supports the section's contents. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply