User:Gp1791/Digital Inheritance/Jeriblank 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?

Gp1791

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Gp1791/Digital_Inheritance?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital inheritance

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Section

I was not sure what Digital Inheritance was when I came to the article, so reading the lead was very enlightening. I was familiar with the concept but didn't know there was a term for it. The lead section describes well the basics of the concept, and why it is important, especially as its something that will only become more important in time. One part that is not clear to me is the sentence "In contrast with physical assets, digital assets are ephemeral and subject to constant change." I see this is from the original article, but I'm a little unclear on this part because if we are dealing with digital assets of a deceased person I'm not sure all of them will be ephemeral, since personal videos/photos, etc. files should stay the same unless someone migrates formats.
Overall, I think the lead is really strong and touches on what the topic is, its implications, some of the pros and cons regarding it. Perhaps if anything a sentence about planning would be good.

Content

Great job with reorganizing the article, the sections you added are good and appropriate expansions of what was there, and the intricacies of the subject.
I noticed that some citations were from various countries, who all have different laws regarding this subject. I wonder if a section that covers global perspectives and laws could be helpful?
The legal sub-section could be its own section, as its a pretty big piece of the subject.
It seems like the overview section is very repetitive of the lead section.
The addition of "obstacles to digital inheritance" and "benefits of digital inheritance" are strong, and clear sections.

Tone & Balance

I'm a little on the fence on wether the article draws conclusions or not, in some ways it does but I don't find it to be a bad thing in this case as stating the facts that its a messy, complicated thing that needs a lot more attention and legal thought... which is all true!
I think there could be better titles for the sections "Practicalities" and "Memorial" I'm not sure they convey the purpose of the section as well as they could.
In the overview section this sentence "What was once passed down as physical assets – analog materials such as letters, financial paperwork, photographs, or books – now exist for many people almost entirely in digital form as email, online banking, digital photos, or e-books" strikes me as a little off. I see you have a journal article cited, but I feel a bit skeptical that these things exists ENTIRELY in digital format. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a mix of both physical and digital, Perhaps in the near future this will be true, but not now. Also these "many people" would have to be well off people in the first world, which is a small portion of the population.
Overall I think the article is neutral, thought it does present arguments for increasing awareness and more legal advancement. I can't imagine anyone not being in favor of those things though.
This is a complicated issues, legally and otherwise.
It's hard to draw a negative/positive line in the information presented but I do find it to be a clear reflection of the topic.

Sources & References

Sources look great, I see lots of journal articles, news articles, and links social media sites policies on deceased persons.
There are some website sources used, but I think that is appropriate given the content. I can't imagine there are many books/textbooks written on the subject yet.
The benefits of digital inheritance section could use some more sources perhaps
Overall it looks statements have strong sources.

Organization

Content is well written and clear, I don't see any spelling or grammar issues.
Organization of the article is well done, the sections you added are strong and great additions to the scope of the subject.

Images & Media

No images added, but I don't think they are necessary for the subject.

Overall Impressions / Other Comments

This is a hard subject to present neutrally! I kept wondering to myself what are the policies on the sites I use, or what would happen to my online info. I'm glad you have some examples from social media here. I almost wanted it to be a guide to all the things we can do to prevent issues from happening after we die, but thats not really what the wiki article is for.