User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition/Grannanj 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
User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Digital Preservation Coalition

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead - You kept the original lead, which is very concise and I think does a good job of quickly describing what the article is. Since you added more information, you may be able to add a little more to the lead, but it should be fine how it is.

Content - You added a lot more information to this article which was definitely lacking originally. It is all relevant to the article and I think adds to the overall article. I especially like the description of the members. For the "Mission" section, I'm assuming it has to do with the company's mission. If so, it may help to mention that specifically in the opening paragraph as right now it doesn't seem like it and I'm a bit confused as to what "Mission" is actually referencing. I might just be reading it wrong, though. If possible, it might be nice to add examples of each type of member in the last section.

Tone and Balance - The article is written in very concise and neutral language. The information added is also neutral. Since this is about a company, it would be difficult to find information about it from sources other than the company's own website. However, you have done a good job finding other sources to help provide more neutral and impartial information.

Sources and References - You have several sources that are relevant to the topic. As I mentioned before, you have found several sources that are not a part of the company. I think it would be nice if you could find a few more so that a greater majority are not from the company itself. This will also give you the chance of using references from more current and diverse sources. Also, four of your sources do not have clickable links, so you may want to look into that. The ones that do have links all still work.

Organization - The organization of your article is good. It all flows nicely. The sections and subsections all make the article easy to read and pleasing to the eye. There is nothing that I would change regarding organization. The writing is good and there does not appear to be any grammar mistakes or awkward sentences.

Images and Media - There are no images or other types of media so I cannot make any direct reviews of that. I am not sure if an image would be too important in this instance so you should be fine as is.

Overall Impression - Overall I think the article is very good. It adds quite a bit of information to the original article and I think provides a more well-rounded picture of the topic. You may want to find a few more current articles and add a little more information in the "Membership" or even "History" sections.