While the credentials of the domains, sites and network might be solid, I was disappointed with the quality of the text in the articles. Yes there's a relevant picture there and yes power of the link might be there, but any human who reads through any one of these articles will know right away that it's either been spun 600 times or was written by a terrible writer.
More importantly, anybody from Google or any other type of authority that might check on a site's backlinks would instantly know that these posts were done for the link and nothing else. A solid high quality backlink in 2016, as this thread portrays to offer, is one that looks natural even under a manual review. Am I a tougher critic than some? Maybe, but backlinks are a delicate subject and "high quality" links might be used for a serious project that can be ruined by over spun garbage like this.
