User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital obsolescence/Grannanj 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Flanagan Institute Applicant

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital obsolescence
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Digital obsolescence

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead - After looking at the original article, I'm assuming your first section titled "Digital Obsolescence" is the lead which you added more to. The information you have added is good and provides some relevant and useful facts on the topic that weren't included before. I would look at the second sentence again as I think you may have missed a linking verb or conjugated another verb wrong, making the sentence read weird.

Content - The content you provide is all relevant and really helps to explain digital obsolescence in more detail. It is good that you provide a description of the four types of digital obsolescence. You could add a little more information in the "Background" section to provide a more general background/history of the topic. It may also help to add a sentence or two on obsolescence and preservation. You mention preservation a few times throughout the page regarding how it is impacted by obsolescence but there is no specific statement on why they are connected that could tie all of this information together. I'm not sure I was able to describe this very well, so feel free to message me if you don't understand.

Tone and Balance - The tone of the whole draft is good. It is neutral and discusses only the facts.

Sources and References - You have a good amount of sources for the amount of information you provided. They also all seem to be from reliable sources or journals and include many types of sources. I would like to note that the link for your reference #18 takes you to the ZDNet main page and not to the article. Also, you have a small quoted phrase in your "Background" section that does not have a citation attached to it. You may also want to add a citation to the end of the four types of obsolescence. Other than those small things, your references and citations are good.

Organization - The organization of the page is very good. I appreciate the use of subtopics and the bulleted list. It makes it all easier to read and the page more pleasant to look at. The information is provided in a concise and clear format. I would suggest that you might consider breaking up some of your sentences. Some of them get very long and are difficult to follow. For example, your Lead section contains only two sentences which could easily be broken up in some of the places you use commas. Also, you may want to read back through your draft more thoroughly as there were a few other grammar mistakes aside from the one I mentioned in the Lead. These are small mistakes so they are easy to miss, especially when writing, so I just want to make sure you watch out for them.

Images and Media - There were no images or other media added to this draft. To me that seems alright as I'm not sure myself where you could add an image in. Perhaps of some old hardware or video games?

Overall Impressions - Overall this is a good draft. It is informative and easy to read. My main suggestions are to add a little more information to the "Background" section, provide a little more specific statements regarding preservation, and fix some of the grammar mistakes. I know this is a draft, but you should definitely look out for the grammar before you officially post it. Grannanj (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)