User:Gs4446/DOCAM/Lady Halfwolf 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?

Gs4446

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gs4446/DOCAM?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): DOCAM

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I think you did a good job making the lead section a lot clearer than it is in the original.
One suggestion I have is somehow incorporating the outputs of the committee into the lead section. You do mention educational tools and solutions, but I almost think that there needs to be a brief statement to give a general idea of what this committee produced. Something similar to the last sentence under the DOCAM Initiatives section might be useful to someone who is just looking for a brief overview of DOCAM.

Content

It was very important that you update the article to reflect that this happened in the past! Not like the current version, which makes it sound like it is still happening.
The content you added really helps further the understanding of this topic. I think you did a great job summarizing the key points of each committee, along with stating the overall purpose of DOCAM.

Tone and Balance

Good use of neutral tone.
I like how you used multiple sources to support points - this was something I should have paid more attention to in my article! Using multiple sources to support ideas is a great way to show balance and reliability in the statements you are making.

Sources and References

Great job at using a lot of secondary sources vs primary sources.
The sources you chose are appropriate for this topic.
Even though this was an older topic, I was glad to see a few more recent sources.
For source #8, it says "check date values." If you click edit source, it should give you an option to manually type the date in a different format to get rid of this error.
Is there a source for this? "For example, in order to re-display media arts created on obsolete systems, a decision must be made regarding whether to migrate the work to a new format or attempt to display the work in its original context using an emulator." - located under DOCAM Initiatives

Organization

Huge improvement from the original!
I like how you start off with a broad section of the DOCAM initiatives and then break it down by committees. Having these subsections really helps people process information, at least in my personal experience.
The content is well-written and easy to understand.

Overall Impressions

I think you did a great job of adding relevant information to this article that helps further the reader's understanding.
Strengths
- Well-structured and succinct content
- Greatly improved the flow of the article from the original, and updated the lead section to reflect the changes
- Good use of secondary sources to support ideas
- Neutral and balanced
Word count is around 650.
I would be interested in more information being added to the Cataloging Structure section, assuming there is more information to add about suggestions or best practices to follow.
It also might be useful/helpful to have a section with key players? Were there any institutions that played a large role in DOCAM? (other than the two mentioned in the lead section)
Great job!!!