Talk:Hybrid publishing

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 March 2019 by reviewer Stevey7788 (talk · contribs).

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

Hey, @Jaz:! I got your message. Hopefully this one works as well! --Axanthou (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex's Peer Review[edit]

Hey @Jaz:!

So, I think that your lead is good. The only thing I'd be concerned about is your last line, which talks about credibility/legitimacy. This comes up later in the article as well, and I think that if you mention it, you have to get into the conversation about what makes something credible and why that is, because otherwise it feels unbalanced.

In terms of the Business Model section, that looks great--just check for typos (there and throughout the article) because I found a couple! In your first line, I think you mean "publisher" and not "author". You also mention Page Two, and the way the sentence is worded makes me think you're going to give us specific examples of their strategies instead of just listing them later on! The other thing I'd say is to add a citation to "As hybrid publishing has become more popular over the years...". Just pop one in there from your history section, because it feels a little empty.

The Publisher Variants section looks great, and does the History section! You might want to consider moving History up to the second section, just because it feels kind of odd to be reading about all this contemporary stuff and then go back to the foundations of everything.

Otherwise, everything looks amazing! Fantastic job! Axanthou (talk) 23:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Axanthou: for your thoughtful review, this helped a lot and I will definitely be making all of those edits! Great point about the history section too!JazminWel (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avvai's Peer Review[edit]

Your article looks so legit Jaz. Awesome work! I agree with Alex's review. Maybe this is beyond the scope of your contribution, but an additional suggestion I have is to consider hybrid models that use crowdfunding as a source of revenue. Take a look at Unbound (a publishing house based in the UK). It is also considered a hybrid publisher as they have a team of editors, designers, etc - they maintain that gatekeeping role. But once a manuscript has been accepted instead of asking the author to pay upfront they help the author crowdfund the book to cover the production costs. The author gets a 50% royalty rate. Unbound can just be added to your list of hybrid publishers! Avvaik92 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Avvaik92: for your note, that's a great point! There's no harm in adding it in. That model is a really great addition to hybrid publishing.JazminWel (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]