User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition/Ginnerz06 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?

Gainag

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Gainag/Digital_Preservation_Coalition?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital Preservation Coalition

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

This section of the article includes a clear, concise introduction to the DPC written by a different user. It has not been updated to reflect the new content added by the author. It appears there many be enough content to include a brief description of the articles major sections in this Lead section.

Content

The first sentence in the Mission section could be reworked with several citations including exactly when sharing information digitally was a ground-breaking act, how long it's been evolving ("constantly and quickly" should be removed or replaced with more explicit descriptions), and what secondary sources can back up claims of "not much attention paid". The remainder of the Mission section is relevant, up-to-date, and written well.

In the Resources section consider replacing "Their" with "The DPC". The remainder of this section is relevant, up-to-date, and written well.

The Advocacy section provides relevant information to this topic, but it reads like it was published by the DPC. Consider adding more citations from publications that are not authored by DPC members that can validate the significance advocacy efforts.

The Membership section is is relevant, up-to-date, and written well.

Tone and Balance

The majority of content added is neutral but the viewpoints from DPC may be over represented. Additional secondary sources should be sought out that publish content about the DPC. Nothing that is being added appears to be heavily biased or persuasive.

Sources and References

As noted above, additional sources should be sought out that report on the DPC. While this article is about a specific organization and it makes sense to have multiple citations from DPC authored material, there is still a need to put this organization in the context of its industry, other players (possibly competitors), notable associations and possibly examples of organizations directly citing the DPC as an asset or hindrance to digital preservation efforts..

Organization

The information that has been added so far is well-written. I do not notice any glaring spelling or grammatical mistakes aside from a missing period in the Full Members section. The major and sub sections are logical and easy to follow.

Images and Media

Images and media have yet to be added by the user in this draft. From a review of the current version of the article as well as the draft written by this user, I do not think there is any pertinent place where images or media would enhance the content. If this user wanted to add an image of the current logo for this organization, that would be the only thing I would consider adding to visually enhance this article.

Overall Impressions

This draft is in good shape. Once the Mission content is modified and additional sources are sought out, the Lead section should be updated to reflect the content of the article body. These revisions and additions will improve the quality of this article.