User:He4150/Conservation and restoration of time-based media art/Ha1154 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Conservation and restoration of new media art

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Peer review

Lead:

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Lead section is missing. I assume it is the "Article Draft" section. Lead is incorrectly placed below the contents section. Lead does not appear to have been modified.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

No, lead is only a description of the topic. Article sections are not mentioned

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead concise but lacks other sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes,

Is the content added up-to-date?

Biggest contribution is to the preservation tools section. Many additional tools were added.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Seeing double appears to be a history topic instead of a strategy.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Unknown.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, New content sticks to the factual information.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Article makes references to several people not famous enough to have a wiki page, link to blank page. This is a specialized topic so focus on some key people is not surprising.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Article maintains neutral tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Due to Wikipedia redirects I cannot access bibliography page. Significant edits have been made to the references section. Many of the older entries have been removed.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

A lot of the references are from websites of tools. The reference in Archivematica has quotes. This may be considered plagiarism by Wikipedia. PRONOM does this too.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Many are websites, not journals.

Are the sources current?

Majority of references were retrieved 2021... from websites these will likely change over time and be lost.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Unknown.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

There is a large discrepancy between original references and the new. Some were updates. I would ensure that citations were not accidentally deleted. Many references are websites not scholarly. I would like to see each preservation tool have a reference back to its creator or parent company at the very least.

Check a few links. Do they work?

Spot check of links worked. Link #3 is broken. Link #8 is partially broken. Crosslinks appear to have been destroyed from original. They might not appear in draft form.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, mostly addition and expansion of existing articles. Easy to consume, the rewording adds value.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I was not able to detect any errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I really like the additions and reordering. Lead is incorrectly placed.

Images and Media

N/A.