User:Grannanj/Digital heritage/Jeriblank Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Grannanj

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grannanj/Digital_heritage?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 Section

1. Overall the lead has a lot of clunky language (which was mostly original), it could really use some better wordage and clarification.
2. I would rework the sentence “the main idea is the transformation of a material object into a virtual copy creating positive and negative implications.” And I think you should take out the “creating positive and negative implications” part, this doesn’t really say anything, as everything in the world and positive and negative implications.
3. The “There has been several debates concerning the efficiency of the process of digitizing heritage” is similarly a non-statement as well.
4. The mention of “several debates concerning the efficiency” could be made clearer as well.
5. Perhaps info about how it differs from digital humanities should go elsewhere in the article.
6. I kind of like the UNESCO definition from the original article, it is a good summary. I believe we are supposed to avoid using direct quotes, so I can see why you would take it out but perhaps there is a way to incorporate some of the information back in.
7. “artwork from literature to paintings” also from the original, but seems like a weird spectrum to me as they exist in a much more limited timeframe than other cultural heritage objects like pottery, sculpture, song, stories, dance etc. It also comes off as a bit biased towards western cultures in that regard.
8. Overall I think the lead needs the most work and additional citations. Many statements need some clarification and details. Adding some info about the education impacts, and some info about the types of technology involved could help round it out.  

Content

1. Content looks good and up to date, especially since this is a new and evolving arena.
2. I’m not sure if they are in the order you intend to add them in the article, but I think the technologies section could go further down in the article.
3. You did a great job with the sections and content you added, they have a lot of good information that really flush out the subject. The length of the sections all seem appropriate, and provide good detail.

Tone & Blance

1. The coverage seems balanced and includes some of the positive and negative aspects which is better explained in the article itself, then the statement in the lead.
2. I don’t see any bias, or emphasis on one point of view in the article, it is well rounded.
3. The addition of the cultural and natural heritage descriptions help explain these two different facets. I think you could add a bit to the natural heritage paragraph to explain more detail on the fact that it's natural as in plant/animal/earth as opposed to cultural which is human made.
4. I’ve pointed out a few sentences elsewhere that could use some re-wording, partly to find a more neutral tone. Some of them may not be your additions to the article though.
5. I don’t see any inclination towards any specific perspective in the article, there is good coverage as stated above.

Sources & References

1. Could use a source for the GIS statement in the technologies section.
2. The Educational impact section could also use a few more references.
3. The sources overall are impressive, good current information. Links work for me!
4. I see a few blogs/websites but they are referencing details on projects which seems appropriate for the content.
5. I do see a lot of references (8) to “Manuel of Digital Earth” and 6 references to the “Heritage in the Digital Age” book, I think it could be considered unbalanced, maybe there are additional sources you can cite for some of these statements.
6. I mentioned a few places that could use sources in the comments above as well.

Organization

1. For the most part added sections are well written, I don't see any major spelling or grammar issues.
2. Parts of the original article need some work regarding sentence structure, some unclear statements and clunky language.
3. The organization is well done, the sections all make sense and are appropriate for the subject

Images & Media

1. No added images or media. It could be interesting to add some examples of 3D renderings of sties or something like that!

Overall - Other Comments

1. In the technologies section, there are a some clunky sentences that do not flow well and could use better structure.
2. “Ancient civilizations or human objects are also able to be spotted via satellite imaging” I think you should say remnants of ancient civilizations, as this reads as if we can see through time (if only!)
3. “This is especially an issue in less developed areas or with underfunded groups such as minorities” I would reword this sentence.
4. The examples in the various sections, like the Great Wall of China, and Notre-Dame restoration area great and really help me picture and understand the ways it can be used. This adds a lot of strength to the article.
5. This is a really interesting subject, I have been wanting to look more into the ways VR could be used to "visit" cultural heritage sites around the world as I think its a really cool concept which could also could provide a more eco friendly alternative to flying around the world ... its like the digital advancement of the fake Lascaux caves that were built for visitors to see to preserver the original.