User:Gs4446/DOCAM/Mgordier Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Gs446

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Gs4446/DOCAM?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

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

DOCAM

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead was expanded from the original to include both wording changes and the addition of more information that provided a bit more clarification and understanding of the topic.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the creation information and its impact.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise but still worded well enough to provide a good amount of information.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Everything that was added is relevant to the topic.

Is the content added up-to-date? The draft touches on the important update of ensuring the wording is in the correct past tense instead of the present tense the original article stated when explain the main topic.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content appears to belong well and nothing seems to be missing to my knowledge.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral? All of the added content is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content is pretty driven by simply stating information about the topic from the sources.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are ample sources for each statement and external sources as well.

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes, both for the general content and for the examples provided.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? All of the sources are from the past 20 years, many being from the past 5. So, the sources are quite current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Yes in terms of where the sources were created and published.

Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Some sources did not provide information on the authors, but other sources did include some historically marginalized individuals.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No, they provided references from official or professional sources, such as government/organization websites and scholarly journals or published dissertations.

Check a few links. Do they work? Both the sources and external links work from the ones I tested. One that I tried did require a log in from an institution, so that may not be accessible for every reader.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and very easy to read.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I was able to see.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are many sections added to the article and there is information prior that gives a basic introduction to them.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What was already present in the original article was richly expanded in the draft and allowed for a more well rounded scope of information that was formed into more pronounced sections. Also, some of the other information present was placed in other sections of the article, which did a great job of allowing for a better progression or flow of information throughout the article. Another nicely done contribution is the addition of examples beyond the basic information, such as the example used in the Conservation and Preservation section.  

What are the strengths of the content added? As previously mentioned, the draft took what was already present and arranged it in a way to create larger sections for the topics mentioned, which allowed for more information to be available in a distinguishably organized way. The draft is well structured in that it included phrasing that highlighted what would be subsequently mentioned throughout the article. Overall, the draft is concise and intuitively structured.

How can the content added be improved? The only thing that I can think to add, would be to include in the lead some sort of way to describe and allude to the following sections, but not including this does not take away from the quality of the draft as it is. As a whole, the draft is well done!