User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital obsolescence/Mgordier Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Flanagan Institute Applicant

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flanagan%20Institute%20Applicant/Digital_obsolescence?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Digital obsolescence

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been worded differently to allow for better clarification and it has rearranged some information differently than in the original article.

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? Partially

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

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, but still includes a good amount of necessary information.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, both in overarching information and with specific information such as examples.

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? None that I can see from my knowledge.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content is mainly expressed through source information.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? While there is a lot of focus on archives and libraries, there is relevant information that pertains to other fields such as video game preservation.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? For the most part, all the sources are reliable. Some sources are only an archived webpage, so it is unclear why that information is no longer used, so this may affect the reliability in terms of updated information.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes

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

Are the sources current? Some are, but there are quite a few that are older than 10-15 years.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Was not able to determine this information.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Not that I was able to find.

Check a few links. Do they work? Most of the sources do work, although I did have trouble accessing source 4 and 14. Sources 9 and 12 do require a log in, so that may not be accessible for every reader.

Organization

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

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I was able to find.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? As mentioned briefly, some information was rearranged, which contributes to the overall organization being well done.

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it provides a nice example that complements the content.

Are images well-captioned? Yes, it includes adequate information and relevant links.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? This isn’t too much of an issue, but it may help if the image is near the information it depicts.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, both structurally and by adding more information that aids in creating a deeper understanding of the topic.

What are the strengths of the content added? The organization and the progression of the information are both well done.

How can the content added be improved? Other than perhaps the sources being a little difficult and the location of the image, there is nothing I can think to improve. The draft is nicely done!