User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art/Mbruce21 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Conservation and restoration of new media art

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead currently provided in the draft is the same lead that appears in the current published article existing on Wikipedia. This Lead is sufficient in that it provides a basic definition of the term which the article focuses on in its first sentence. This initial first sentence provides a brief understanding of what the conservation and restoration of new media art entails by describing, briefly what new media art is—art created with new mediums such as digital, biological or performative art. This sentence should be kept; however, it is slightly odd grammatically. The words “using from” could be edited by either eliminating one word or the other.

The second paragraph of the two-paragraph lead does a good job to paint the context within which the field of new media art conservation and restoration has developed. It provides explanation into how new media art has grown and thus how issues regarding its continued conservation have arisen and that its unique media and live quality has led to a need for unique conservation strategies outside the box from the conservation of more conventional formats.

After this second paragraph, I think the Lead could benefit from a third paragraph which explains how the article tackles this topic more technically. From the first two paragraphs we understand the topic and how it has come to exist, but we don’t understand how, exactly, the conservation of new media art is approached and whether those approaches are discussed in the article (we know preservation strategies and tools exist, just not which), and these unique strategies are discussed thoroughly in the article. A paragraph which indicates the preservation strategies which the author has added to immensely would be helpful. This paragraph could begin somehow along the lines: “As a result of new media art’s unique characteristics, several preservation strategies and tools have been considered and developed…”. This addition may help to update the lead to reflect the content added in this draft that differs from the original article, while also highlighting, with more detail, two of the article’s largest sections: Preservation strategies and Preservation tools.

If this paragraph is added, it should not do much more than summarize or list the strategies which are discussed, so it does not become too detailed. Along with this, the second paragraph could be edited down to provide the same gist in fewer words, as it is currently overly descriptive of the crux of the issue: that new media art runs a unique risk when it comes to longevity that has resulted in the development of new/different preservation strategies.

Content

Significant content was added to the Preservation strategies section and the Preservation tools section of the article. Beyond these additions, significant modifications were made to content in the Metadata standards section, where the entire section was rewritten, covering the same content but in a new way and with different sources than previously used. It may be beneficial to add more information elsewhere in the article to have more original content beyond topics that were already discussed in the article. This would help to bring more nuance to the topic and more information to the article that was not already there in some respect. Also, the specific preservation tools that were added in the Preservation tools area could be further developed to give more original contributions to the already existing article and its content. These tools could also benefit from more information to help build a clearer explanation of their form and function for the reader, particularly, for example “QC Tools”, “Media Info” and “Archivematica”. Also, these tools would benefit from information indicating for what purpose they were developed (i.e. were they made specifically for new media art conservation) and how they have come to be used for new media art conservation in particular. That way, it is clear to the reader as to why these preservation tools are listed among others: because they aid in new media art conservation in x, y, z ways. Some of these tools are already well described in this way: “Bit Curator” and “Conifer” for example, where the reader can clearly see the tools’ connection to new media art and its conservation particularly with that tool’s assistance. The section on the “Variable Media Questionnaire” mentions that “they utilize 4 main preservation strategies”. What are these 4 strategies? This section might benefit at least from a list of these strategies or a list and brief description of each strategy.

Tone and Balance

The majority of content added to the article and rewritten from the original article is neutral, as it is purely describing a tool, strategy, or piece of information exactly for what it is. However, since preservation is an activity with many different modes for completion from which a conservationist or archivist can choose, sometimes certain methods are preferred over others, whether by the community as a whole or by just a few individuals. As such, sometimes the article reads like it is giving advice on how to perform conservation of new media art best, specifically using the word “should”. This can come across as biased toward certain preservation practices or strategies over others. Instances which used words like should or suggest a certain practice as the best method, or the worst method, etc., could be changed to read less like instruction or advice and more as a bona fide fact of certified best practice. For example, with the section titled Migration, there is a sentence which reads: “the document should be stored in its original form for authenticity, but also migrated to a non-proprietary software for long-term access”. Now, while this may be a generally agreed upon practice, the use of the word “should” can underlay the meaning with some unintended bias. This sentence could perhaps be instead written: “In the process of migration a document can be stored in its original form and a non-proprietary form in order to maintain authenticity while also providing long term access”. In the section titled Reinterpretation, there is a sentence which reads: “…it should be considered only when all other storage forms are not available”. This could perhaps be written: “reinterpretation is only considered when all other storage forms are not available”. Finally, also in the section titled Reinterpretation, there is a sentence which reads: “This is why it should only be used when the other strategies are not appropriate”. This could perhaps be written: “Therefore, it is considered best to only use reinterpretation when all other strategies are deemed inappropriate.” These are only suggestion, but a reworking of these sentences to not use the word should, but still convey that it is considered a good or bad practice would be beneficial to the article’s overall tone and balance.

Sources and References

All added content seems to be backed up by one of the twelve sources listed in the references section. Several of the twelve sources seem to come from well-respected sites, journals or textbooks: Like the Digial Curation by Gillian Oliver, or The Theory and Craft of Digital Preservation by Trevor Owens and published by Johns Hopkins University Press, or the Variable Media Initiative from the Guggenheim Museums and Foundation, or Unfold: The Strategic Importance of Reinterpretation for Media art Mediation & Conservation published by LIMA, a platform for media art in Amsterdam. The majority of the rest of the sources seem to be websites for the different preservation tools listed and described, like PRONOM or Archivematica. These seem like reliable information about these programs and what they do, however, I am not sure if they are considered secondary as they are coming from the source which created them. I am sometimes unsure with secondary or primary, as I am not sure if this only applies to the article topic as a whole: as in, if the article was about Archivematica, then the Archivematic website should not be used. What exactly constitutes a secondary source should be clarified and these sources re-evaluated on that context and replaced if needed.

The link for the third citation from the Bodleian Libraries does not seem to be included or working. This link should be verified and inserted into the citation so that readers can access the source being referenced. The link for the tenth citation from PRONOM also does not seem to be working. When selected, a 404 Page Not Found error was returned.

The sources seem to be incredibly recent with most dating from 2016 or later. One is from 2007, but from a prominent figure in the conservation of media art, Richard Reinhart, who is also the creator of the Media Art Notation System, which the section where this citation is used is about.

One area where an included citation was particularly confusing was in the section for “Seeing Double: an emulation testbed”. This section is copied form the original article, so no content appears to have been changed, but in the draft, the section has been given a new citation to a reference different from the one originally cited in the article. I am not sure if this is because a better source was found than the original, but it seems it would be best practice to keep the citation that was included by the person who wrote that content, as they would know best where they got that information from and how to attribute it. Potentially, the new citation could be added in addition to the original one if they both comment on the same information in the same way, or it could be added if a sentence or two was created which summarized information from the new source about the same topic. It is clear however, that this new source is a reliable and recent source which could assuredly be used somewhere in the article.

Organization

The original content added in the draft of this article is largely clear and concise. Sections which were brand new, specifically the preservation tools additions are very clear and simple to read. While some may benefit from more information, most are not longer than a few sentences, and that seems sufficient, as, after all, this article is not about “Archivematica” or “Bit Curator” but the conservation and restoration or new media art. Most sentences are quite clear, and the only convolutions exist where words like “should” are used as I stated earlier.

Overall, there are no glaring errors in the grammar or spelling of the article. It would be good to go back and check the article for any instances of lists, as some required the use of semi-colons and contained many multi-faceted items. Therefore, it might be helpful to read over these lists again and make sure there is consistent use of oxford commas (or not) as well as proper conjunctions before the final list item (like “and” or “or”) when necessary.

In terms of structure of the content, the current breakdown of headings and subheadings seems sensible, I particularly like the change of moving the Relationship to other preservation efforts section toward the end of the article rather than having it first. I personally think I like the location of the History section toward the end of the article as well, however, it may be worth considering moving to the beginning as many Wikipedia articles follow the structure of having a history of the topic first, followed by more granular, in-depth sections regarding the topic. Finally, the section titled Consortium efforts does read like a brief history of all the key players in the conservation of new media art movement. I wonder if it would be better to combine this section with the History section and make it one larger History section?

Images and Media

Currently there are no images included in the published Wikipedia article or the draft. Therefore, there are no images that are ill-captioned, breaking copyright restrictions or laid out in a visually unappealing way. I do not believe that this article would particularly benefit from any sort of images. Something that might be considered beneficial at first glance might be an image of some sort of new media art. However, upon further thought and reflection that does not seem relevant to this article, as it would be better placed in the New media art article, which this topic references, so that type of image would be unnecessary. Including any other images, such a logos for the preservation tools described, would be ill-advised as well as it might indicate preference toward those tools for which images are included.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the content that was added provided a lot for the article. The article's current version had only one example of a preservation tool. With the new additions of this draft, the reader is introduced to six new preservation tools which play a role in the field of conservation and restoration of new media art. This is a huge strength. Preservation and conservation, especially of new media art is a complex process with many methods or ways to accomplish the continued longevity of the object, and adding these examples of different preservation tools and how they are used illustrates that wealth of options (and decisions) when it comes to new media art conservation. However, on the same note, these additions could be further expounded and elaborated upon. More specific information regarding how each preservation tool is used in the new media art conservation process in particular would be helpful in cementing its connection to the main article topic and thus its inclusion in the article.

Word Count

Based on my count, it looks like there are 984 words added. There were, according to my calculations and understanding of what was given to me, 466 words of new content added, and 518 words of rewritten content (i.e., it was a section that already existed, its content was just rewritten and reworked). Based on that, I think there are enough words for what is required. I am not sure about whether it needs to be 800 words of brand-new content that covers only topics that were not in the article previously, if so, then around 400 more words would need to be added.