User:Mbruce21/Database preservation/Gs4446 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?

Mbruce21

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Mbruce21/Database_preservation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Database preservation

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I really like the points that you are making in the lead, and I think they are important to the article. It does feel a little incomplete. I think you are missing a really powerful lead-in sentence that summarizes what the article is about. If someone comes to the article and reads just the first few sentences, would they have a good "elevator pitch" understanding of the topic? Right now I am not sure that they would, but I think you will be there with a few changes.
I haven't researched the topic as thoroughly as you have, so I'm not sure if there is a reason you removed the wording from the lead of the current article. I think something similar to that would be great as they appear to do a good job explaining what database preservation is. Could you possibly use the current lead and tweak/reword it in combination with some of the language you have added?

Content

The section about database characteristics is a wonderful add! This is key to database preservation and really helps me to understand the topic.
I like the inclusion of information about RODA. Are there any other database preservation projects that are important and would add to the understanding of this topic? I noticed that the original article linked to LOCKSS, which is a project I have heard about frequently during the SIS program. Would it make sense to add a section about LOCKSS and/or any other similar projects?

Tone and Balance

Overall, the tone and balance of this article is neutral and well-done. I am curious about the inclusion of CHRONOS as a proprietary solution for database preservation. Is there a reason this particular solution is highlighted? Are there other proprietary solutions you could include as well, or is there something unique or special about this particular solution that warrants inclusion in the article? If it is important and unique, you could add a few sentences to explain this. If not, maybe it would be better to include a generic section discussing common features and the importance of proprietary solutions.

Sources and References

I appreciated the inclusion of trusted, peer-reviewed sources.
There are only a few sources included. Are there other sources you could find that would create additional support for the information you include in the article? The section about RODA seemed to be somewhat long to only have one reference. Has anyone else published on this topic?
It seems like database preservation would be an area that is rapidly changing with new technology, but most of the articles cited are over a decade old. Is there any newer research that might add support to your article?

Organization

I thought that the article was structured well and easy to read. The only thing I can think of in terms of structure is that perhaps instead of sections for CHRONOS and RODA, you could have one section for software/tools and one for projects, and have the specific tools and projects listed as additional subheadings under these sections.
In the database section where you discuss database characteristics, consider using formatting (maybe a bulleted list or similar) to make the section discussing migration, emulation, and XML easier to read.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think you have a wonderful start to a draft and you did a great job following Wikipedia's guidelines. I think there is still a lot that could be contributed to this article in terms of additional tools or projects utilizing database preservation, but I also understand that for this assignment it may be too big of an undertaking since this topic is so broad. You are just over the 800 words contributed mark and you are in great shape for the assignment word count requirements. Nice work!