User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition/Madisonroberts97 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?

Gainag

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gainag/Digital_Preservation_Coalition?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital heritage

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is not very updated at all. In fact, it is just one sentence. The sentence does explain nicely and succinctly what the Digital Preservation Coalition is, but it does not go into detail and is not reflective of the rest of the article.

Content

The content is definitely relevant to the topic. Everything here is exactly related to the DPC, but there isn't much information on their strategies or initiatives. I would add some more information on what makes them important in the world of digital preservation and curation. The history section is also very small. I would definitely expand on that. That is an awesome place to bulk up the article. You can talk about past conferences, presentations, and outreach events. You could talk about influential leadership and impact on the information field as well as the wider world. I would also add a section on impact where you talk about new strategies or initiatives they have started and what is now standard practice because of the DPC.

The information seems to all be up to date. There is no content here that does not belong, but there is missing content described above. The article does not address an equity gap. I would try to see if the DPC has worked to include minority voices in preservation. Has there been any pushback against the DPC? Don't paint the DPC in a perfect light if there have been any controversies.

Tone and Balance

The content added so far is definitely neutral. I think it would be difficult with the matter-of-fact information added so far to have too much of a bias. The only thing I would be conscious of is adding any information about pushback or controversies. It is important to show all sides of a topic.

The big underrepresentation that I noticed is not a particular viewpoint, but the lack of information on history of the organization. This seems like a really important section of the article and one I would scroll to right away if I was a reader. This also seems like a great opportunity to include information on influential past leadership. I know that individuals are often what makes an organization great and impactful, so it seems like a missed opportunity to not highlight those individuals here.

The content does not try to persuade the reader of anything.

Sources and References

I think everything for the most part is backed up by sources and references. There are a few missing citations. You don't have any citations under "Full members" and "Associate members." You do provide information there and even if it's coming from the same source you used above, I would probably cite it again because you are providing new information under new sub-headings.

The content does accurately reflect the sources, the sources are current, and the links work.

I would not say that the sources are thorough or reflective of a diverse spectrum of authors. These are definitely things I would work on when revising. I would aim for 15-20 sources from a variety of backgrounds. You could cite people who have written about or referenced the DPC in their work or even presentation and lectures done by the DPC themselves.

Organization

The content here is definitely concise and easy to read. I would not focus on that too much in your revisions. I would focus on expanding and trusting that your reader can handle and wants more information. There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.

The only thing that I would change as far as organization is maybe breaking down the history section into sub-sections where you go into detail on various aspects of the history of the organization. I would also probably add a section on the impacts of the DPC within the wider field and maybe even other fields.

Images and Media

Right now, there are no images or media in the draft or the published article. There are some great opportunities here to add images of the strategies being implemented, of influential leadership, etc.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I would say you're off to a great start! You've got some good information that is very concise and accurate. When you work on expanding that and giving your audience more of the detailed information they want, I know it will be a great article.