User:Grannanj/Digital heritage/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?

Grannanj

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

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The user has updated the lead to help reflect the content they have added. Specifically, they have added a sentence that describes what types of objects are preserved in the digitization of cultural heritage. They also discuss these objects further in the Cultural and Natural Heritage section that they have also added in their draft. However, the user may also need to update the lead further by adding something that mentions the other sections they have added in their draft: Technologies used in Digital Heritage and, within the Cultural and Natural Heritage section the subsection called Educational Impact. Adding reference to these two article section additions will complete the lead.

If the user intends to use the same introductory sentence the lead has currently in the existing article, then they do have an and introductory sentence that concisely and clearly states the article’s topic. However, they did not copy this sentence over from the existing article so I was not sure if this was something they were hoping to still use or not, I think they certainly can and should still use it.

I mentioned earlier that the user probably still needs to add reference to two of the sections they have added into the lead, but currently the lead also doesn’t explicitly lay out the article’s major sections. I think this lead would benefit from more of an explicit reference to the major sections of the article. The current lead with the user’s additions does do a good job of giving an overview of the topic, however, I think the sections that are provided in this article are very specific and do not pertain so closely to what is written in the lead. Therefore, they can feel a little like they came out of the blue. Making more of an explicit reference to the various main sections of the article would be beneficial.

I think this lead also does seem to maybe contain information that isn’t explicitly in the article itself. For example, it talks about debates regarding “the efficiency of the process of digitizing heritage”, the “drawbacks”, and also a social debate about accessibility. I’m not sure that much of this is touched on later in the article, either in the existing article or in the draft by this user. I think the user briefly touches on these topics, or similar ideas, in the various new content and sections they have added. However, I wonder if it would be beneficial to have a section that more explicitly reflects on these debates that are mentioned in the lead, especially if the user plans to keep this content in the lead. However, they could also remove this content from the lead and not add the section.

The lead is maybe currently a bit too long, given the brevity of the existing article. However, with the user’s additions in this draft I think it is a good length.

Content

The content that this user has added is relevant to the topic. The content is also up-to-date, which can be gathered from the dates of the sources that the user has referenced. The oldest source is from 2005, but one of the pieces cited with this source is the following sentence: “This is especially an issue in less developed areas or with underfunded groups such as minorities.” I think this sentence is important to point out as it deals with underrepresented populations. Therefore, despite the age of the source it is worth keeping.

I mentioned earlier regarding the lead that there is some material in there regarding debates in this topic that might need to be added to the article or taken out of the lead if it is not added. There are some moments where these ideas are touched on briefly, but they could be further fleshed out. However, the user has also already added over 800 words of really solid content. Therefore, I don’t feel it is necessary to add this so-called “missing content” if they do not want to, but it might be better to adjust the lead instead.

There is not any content that “does not belong”.

In regard to whether or not this draft deals with an equity gap on Wikipedia, I think this draft does begin to do so. The user touches on this at the end of their Technologies used in Digital Heritage section. It would need to be fleshed out a little more, maybe mention specific groups that this lack of access to technological resources affects.

Tone and Balance

I do not necessarily think this user is being biased or that their writing isn’t neutral, but there are some sections and some wordings that can make the additions they have made feel a little “persuasive”, at least by Wikipedia’s standards. For example, I felt the section on Cultural and Natural Heritage began to feel like it is trying to convince the reader of the importance of preserving digital heritage objects rather than just stating facts as Wikipedia would like. Some words and phrasings that I think add to this feeling are: “this allows not only for…”, “projects like these are vital…”, “is particularly in trouble…”, “In many cases…”, “There are many projects and programs…”. As I myself am still trying to learn and adhere to Wikipedia’s standards, I am not sure if there is anything necessarily wrong with these phrasings, but I would urge the user to take a look again at the documents provided to us in the first week of the Wiki course. One is called Editing Wikipedia and the other Evaluating Wikipedia. If the user wants to check their work against Page 8 of Editing Wikipedia and page 6 of Evaluating Wikipedia, I think these two pages will help the user to determine if the tone of their work is neutral. Double checking this, and removing any language that potentially feels biased, will probably rectify any underlying feelings of persuasiveness. With all that being said, I still don’t think there are any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented, that the content added is heavily biased, or that it is an obvious attempt to persuade the reader about something, simply because I don’t think the nature of this topic is particularly debatable.

Sources and References

All new content is cited and backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There are some sentences that don’t have a citation linked at the end of them, I am assuming this is because there are multiple sentences from the same source and the user is only citing after the last sentence to use that source. I think this is okay, but I would double check with Wikipedia trainings to be sure.

The sources utilized by this Wikipedia user are also current. I mentioned earlier that the oldest source used is from 2005, but I felt that particular sentence was important and I would not take that out simply because the source is a little bit older than the others. There are two sources that don’t have dates, but the earliest mention I can find of the Mapping Gothic France project is 2011 and It seems the article from the AIA is from 2019 as it mentions the 2019 conference. Therefore, all the sources used are current.

The user does not need to look for “better sources” that are available because none of these sources are “news coverage or random websites.” The only source close to that would be the source from the AIA about Notre Dame, but considering that was a current event and it is referenced by the user in their draft quite simply, I don’t think it makes sense to find a scholarly, peer-reviewed article for a simple fact regarding a current event.

All links in the references section work properly. The sources utilized are reflected accurately in the content added by this user. The sources do seem to be thorough as well and represent the literature on the topic due to their currency and variety. There are books and journal articles cited.

Organization

The content that this user has added is very well-written. I believe that this user has really done quite a fantastic job overall with their additions to this article. Everything is easy to read and concise and a worthwhile addition. There are a few errors here and there, that a little proofreading will fix quite easily. For example, I don’t believe the “to” is needed in the following sentence: “It is also used to in the preservation and access of objects with enduring or significant historical, scientific, or cultural value including buildings, archeological sites, and natural phenomena.” Also, changing “is” to “are” and taking out “primarily” in the following sentence: “Geographic Information systems are a form of technology that is used primarily in the study of natural heritage.” I also think replacing “particularly in trouble” with “vulnerable” might be better phrasing for the following sentence: “Intangible heritage is particularly in trouble due to urbanization and benefits from digitization programs.”

This user also has organized their content well. I believe the names of these new sections make sense given the content that makes them up. I think it would be beneficial to organize the final article with the Cultural and Natural Heritage section being the first section after the lead, even before what is already in the current article. Then I would maybe do the Digital heritage stewardship section from the original article and I would put the user’s Technologies section before the Virtual heritage section already in the article. One thing I am not entirely certain on is the placement of Educational Impact within the Cultural and Natural Heritage section. I feel it might make sense to have it on its own. Other than these thoughts, I think the rest of the organization is really up to the user. I don’t feel any choices beyond what I have mentioned would particularly hurt or help the article. I do believe that all the sections existing, and added by the user, do a good job reflecting the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

The user has not yet added any images or media to their article draft. There are also no images present in the original article. Therefore, I think it could be beneficial for the user to consider adding some imagery to their draft. One such place could be when they mention the fire at Notre Dame. A photo of this might enhance a reader’s experience and understanding. Similarly, an image could be added when the user mentions, in the Cultural and Natural Heritage section, “in some cases entire cities”. A photo of such a city as an example of this would help to illustrate what objects are being discussed when thinking about Digital Cultural Heritage. Should the user choose to add any images they should be sure to adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations standards as well as to caption their images. There is a training provided in our course regarding imagery to help with this (contributing images and media files).

Overall Impressions

My overall impression is that this user has done a really good and thorough job and only has to make minor edits for this draft to be ready to publish. The added content has certainly improved the quality of the article as it is well-written and brings a few different aspects of the topic to light that are currently ignored in the existing article. This certainly makes the article more complete. I found the section the user called Technologies used in Digital Heritage to be a particular strength because it is useful to understanding how these types of objects are digitized and therefore, what makes up the topic of digital heritage.

Word Count

It looks as though the user has written approximately 929 words of new content for this article. Therefore, the user has met the requirements of the assignment, which is to add 800 words of new content to the article. The questions is, can we not go over the 800 word count? If so, then the user may need to cut a few words. This could maybe be done by taking out some of the language that begins to feel persuasive by Wikipedia’s standards. I would suggest that the user check back with the documents from week 1 of our Wikipedia course. These documents discuss what sort of language needs to be avoided to keep an article simple and unbiased. This might help the user to find some words to cut should they need to.