User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art/Gs4446 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation_and_restoration_of_new_media_art?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Conservation and restoration of new media art

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

The lead has not been updated much since the original draft, but I think this is okay as it the first sentence is already quite clear and concise.
It does look like a citation may have been removed at the end of the statement about the vulnerability of rapid technological obsolescence; not sure if this was intentional or just deleted by mistake?
It may be helpful to include a brief summary or description of the article's sections within the lead. The second paragraph of the lead discusses reasons for the conservation and restoration of new media art and why it is important. If a description of the article's major sections would otherwise make the lead too wordy, maybe the current second paragraph could logically be removed and placed into its own section.

Content[edit]

The added content is relevant to the topic and neutral. The author does a great job with a neutral tone that is unbiased and does not attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another. The article is balanced, and there is no viewpoint that is underrepresented or overrepresented.

Sources and References[edit]

Some of the added content includes references, but other segments do not have references tied to them or the references are at the end of the paragraph rather than tied to each sentence. For example, in the Reinterpretation section, I would recommend removing the last sentence and bringing the citation/reference up to the end of the first sentence of the section.
A lot of the current/existing information in the article appears to be unverified/uncited. Dr. B. mentioned focusing on new information and new citations, but since this article is fairly well-developed maybe it is possible to find sources for these items and add additional content as well? The Individual Efforts and Consortium Efforts existing sections have very few references.

Organization[edit]

I really like the structure and I think it makes sense to move the relation to other preservation efforts to the end. You could consider moving the "history" section for the beginning of the article to make it chronological, but I also think it would be fine to make the choice to keep it near the end because it is not the key piece of the article.

Overall Impressions

I would be interested to potentially know more information about the preservation tools and processes and the strengths/weaknesses of each - why would a professional/institution choose one tool over another?
It was slightly difficult to determine the word count since many of the sections of this longer article were added/rewritten, but you have definitely met the 800-word requirement. It looks like about 983 words have been added.
You did a great job finding additional information and adding to the article. Nice work!