User:Lady Halfwolf/Digital repatriation/Gainag 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?

Lady Halfwolf

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Lady%20Halfwolf/Digital_repatriation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Digital repatriation

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The editor does not provide an updated lead to reflect any of the information they added in their sandbox draft. A brief mention of the software and technology made available to originating cultures to gain control over their heritage would be a sufficient addition.

Content

The content is highly relevant to the topic of the article. There is a lot of research being done in this area and it is constantly changing, which is reflected in the very current secondary sources used to back up the information presented.

Tone and Balance

The information is presented in a neutral tone, free from bias and persuasion. The existing article provides a good balance in viewpoints between originating cultures and scholarly organizations and the various aspects of how digital repatriation affects both positions.

Sources and References

The sources are quite up to date, all less than 10 years old.

Organization

The new headings will make welcome additions to the main wiki article, adding necessary sections on Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Software and Technology developed to better reflect efforts made in understanding and supporting the originating cultures drive to control their traditional knowledge.

Images and Media

The editor has not added any images or media to their draft. Perhaps the editor could add images from the various projects covered in their draft.

Overall Impressions

The article is well written, free of any large grammatical and spelling errors, presenting the information in a focused and neutral manner. I have done research on Mukurtu CMS and TK Labels for a previous course project and I am doing more research for a course this semester that includes the relationship between North American Indigenous people and museum curation and I really appreciate the additions you are making to this wiki article.