User:Ginnerz06/Digital hoarding/He3525 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?

Ginnerz06

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ginnerz06/Digital hoarding
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital Hoarding

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The existing lead for this article has yet to be updated in this draft. Though some thoughts are provided by the user for ideas they would like to add to the lead. I would suggest that the user update the lead once their draft structure is further finalized. Doing this will mean that the lead will then provide a brief description of the article's main sections, as is necessary, because it is likely the major sections of the article will change once this user's additions are made and the lead doesn't seem to do a great job of this with the current sections.

I think the current first sentence is sufficient and what Wikipedia is looking for in the first sentence of a lead section. It is concise and seems to describe the article’s topic accurately and efficiently. I do not think this sentence needs to be changed per se, but if the user has some "also known as" terms they would like to add based on the scientific literature they have found, I think that would be a fine addition that would not hinder this already good first sentence. However, if they don't have any specific terms already lined up that they would like to add and that note is more of a thought they were going to explore further, I don't believe it is all that necessary.

In regard to this note ("Update definition based on currently cited scientific definition by van Bennekom") left by the user on their draft, I think that would definitely be the right idea. Currently the first sentence of the lead, though well written and good, is cited as being from an article from The Guardian. Therefore, I think editing this sentence, or added a new definition elsewhere in the lead, based on the scientific definition from the van Bennekom source would benefit the article as it is a more appropriate source based on Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Content

All the content added thus far in this draft is relevant to the topic. The content that the user has suggested in their notes to be added later is relevant as well. The user hopes to add more scientifically verified content, which will greatly improve the article, which is largely based in current events, news, and popular culture.

The content that has been added appears to be up to date based on the dates of the sources used to reference the newly added content. One source is a little older than the others (2001), but due to the fact that this article is currently lacking in any scientifically verified secondary sources, content that is a little dated is still beneficial to add to provide a more nuanced and scientific look at the topic.

There does not seem to be any content missing and the additions will likely fill many of the gaps present in the existing article. All content that has been added, or is being planned to be added, is relevant and pertains the topic. There isn't anything that doesn't belong. The additions and planned additions will bring a much needed scientific and scholarly side to the existing article.

Tone and Balance

The majority of the content that has been added is neutral. However, much of the article is still in a "note" form that will be added to and edited quite a bit further. When this is done, I urge the user to keep in mind the need to stay neutral. There are some instances in the more finalized material added by the user that, though aren't necessarily not neutral, might need to be edited to feel less "persuasive", if you will. These two instances are as follows:

"Since the publication of this case study, several attempts have been made to study digital hoarding. In each of these publications there are clear knowledge gaps identified citing the need of more research to better understand digital hoarding."

"This boundary between work vs personal information spaces is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain prompting some archivists to suggest work and personal information could merge into personal record keeping"

In the first case, I think, based on what we have learned about Wikipedia and its guidelines, that the user should probably stay away from using the word "several" unless they can clearly cite it, because people may wonder what several attempts and by whom they are referring to. I think the same issue might occur in the second instance in regard to saying "some archivists to suggest.” I think Wikipedia will want to know specifically which archivists. It is my understanding that these types of generalizations are things to avoid in the tone of your writing on Wikipedia.

Nothing that is being added appears to be heavily biased, persuasive, underrepresented, or overrepresented.

Sources and References

The sources utilized are current. One is a little further out of date, but I feel that is okay given that all the sources being added by the user add scientific, scholarly content that the existing article is lacking.

All the links to the utilized sources work properly.

All the added content is backed up by one of the added sources. One thing I am unsure of is if Wikipedia requires that every sentence be cited or not, meaning there are some instances in the added content where the user is citing the source at the end of them talking about one singular source. This means that some sentences don’t have a citation at the end but are cited a few sentences later in order to avoid putting the same citation link after every sentence when multiple sentences in a row are utilizing the same source. I believe this is okay, but it would be worth going back to check our Wikipedia trainings to see if it is okay or not.

There is some added content that is not cited, but that is because a lot of this draft is in a “note” form rather than being a final product. Where they can, it seems the user does mention what source they hope to put for certain noted information. I imagine once the user further fleshes out their ideas that the sources will be added in to cite the appropriate material as has been done with the material that has already been more fleshed out. Also, all sources are reliable secondary sources, and the user is not currently citing articles that are news coverage or random websites. The user does plan to add a pop culture/in the media section in which case, sources of this nature will be relevant to add and not be a bad thing to add to the article.

Upon further review of the sources, the content that has been added and fleshed out does accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources that have been added so far reflect the literature that has been added, but further sources will most likely need to be included to better reflect the literature that has just been noted for now in the draft.

Organization

The information that has been added thus far is well-written. I do not notice any glaring spelling or grammatical mistakes in the content that has been added by the user in this draft. With that being said, a lot of this draft is still in "note" form. A lot of what is written is simply ideas that have been jotted down by the user. Therefore, these details will need to be fleshed out and, once they are properly written, checked again for any spelling or grammar issues. However, the notes that have been left by the user in this draft are relatively clear, concise, and discernible so simply fleshing them out and writing them as proper sentences should be easy enough and will enhance the quality of the draft quickly and easily.

Regarding the organization of the draft, I do think it is currently broken down into sections that make sense and reflect the major points of the topic. Though, I have some questions. Is the user thinking they will move the current "causes" section of the article to be under this new section they have created called "scientific studies"? I am not entirely sure if this is pertinent unless these causes are all things discussed in the scientific studies. If not, I would leave them separate. This would also then allow the user to put causes that are scientifically founded as well as more pop culture-oriented causes into the same section. Along with that, is the user planning on putting "scientific studies" and "Knowledge gaps/challenges" under the overarching topic of "As a medical condition"? If so, I have the same feedback: If the content under "scientific studies" and "knowledge gaps/challenges" will refer specifically to digital hoarding through the lens of it being a medical condition then these sections can, and should, stay in this hierarchical format. If these sections won't purely talk about digital hoarding through the lens of it being a medical condition, then these sub sections should be moved to be their own, main sections.

I also wondered about the addition of the potential "pop culture lens?" section. I wondered if the content that would be added in this section could actually go in the existing section of the article entitled "In the media". It seems like the content the user wants to add in the pop culture section would fit well in this already existing section and, thus, there might not be a reason to add a whole new pop culture section because of it. The user also noted here that they wondered if a sentence or two should be added in the lead about this new pop culture lens. I believe the lead already briefly mentions pop culture; therefore, I think it might not be necessary to add anything else.

Images and Media

Images and media have yet to be added by the user in this draft. From a review of the current version of the article as well as the draft written by this user, I do not think there is any pertinent place where images or media would enhance the content.

Overall Impressions

My overall impression is that the content that has been added and that is planned to be added by this user will improve the quality of the article especially because the content is largely scientific/scholarly in nature. This is a strength for the article and allows it to be more complete, as the existing article is currently lacking this scientific/scholarly lens. The content being added will be improved once it is fully fleshed out when the user has had more time and the ability to take in pertinent feedback regarding the structure and organization, which I have provided as well as others.

Word Count

As of now the user is at about 460 words. I did not include the introduction as, based on the user’s notation, it seems that is the current introduction that already exists for their article, and they will be making modifications to it once their draft is further finalized. Therefore, they have about 400 or so more words they will need to add to get closer to the 800-word count. Though I imagine that won't be too difficult for them as they seem to have plans for some sections that need to be further fleshed out.