User:Gs4446/DOCAM/Gainag 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?

Reviewing user Gs4446's DOCAM article.

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gs4446/DOCAM
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): DOCAM

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead was updated to reflect the updated information in the main body of the article. The additional information added to the lead is brief, but provides a good background for the information to come.

Content

All of the content is relevant and up to date, primarily focusing on the initiatives and activities of DOCAM. The lead give a very brief glimpse into the history of the organization, but they only mention the creation date and the organizations involved. A more thorough representation of the background of the organization would flesh out the article nicely. The draft author also stated that the program ran from 2005-2010, so it would also add another dimension to the article to discuss any lasting impacts that the DOCAM initiatives had on the media arts heritage field.

Tone and Balance

The information is presented in a neutral tone, free from bias and persuasion. No viewpoint is given any weight over another as there are no viewpoints presented at all, just information on the project of DOCAM in a matter of fact tone.

Sources and References

The sources seem up to date and properly reflect the information presented in the article draft. Roughly 75% of the references are secondary sources from writers and agencies outside of DOCAM.

Organization

This is the only other aspect of the article draft that raises concern, but that is due to the one sided nature of the information presented. There are only sub-headings that are assigned to each initiative, but the lack of a History or Impact section does not allow for any additional lager headings to break up the page.

Images and Media

The editor has not added any images or media to their draft, but this is not an article that lends well to a lot of images. Locating and adding an image of the logo would be enough.

Overall Impressions

The article is well written, free of any large grammatical and spelling errors, presenting the information in a focused and neutral manner. The additions of a History and Impact section would give greater dimension and meaning to the DOCAM initiatives covered and would help fill out the overall layout of the article.