User:Mgordier/Perpetual access/Ginnerz06 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?

Mgordier

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mgordier/Perpetual access
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Perpetual access

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead section for this article appears to be the beginning of a rewrite of the existing lead section. It reflects new content added by the author and includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Since the remainder of the article has yet to be written and I did not see an outline of planned sections, the lead will need a brief description of the article's major sections once they are defined.

Content

All content currently included in this draft is relevant to perpetual access. The content in the draft seems to be up to date and will be further addressed in the Sources and References section below. I expect there is quite a bit of content missing from this article but that all depends on how the author decides to structure this article. While all the content seems to be relevant, each paragraph seems to be addressing an element of perpetual access without identifying how it fits into the discussion of this topic. The author should consider section headings such as relevant licensing laws, the history of scholarly discussion around this topic, challenges to perpetual access and current expert recommendations on how to address it. This article also presents an opportunity to address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, in this case I'm thinking of people living in communities without access to broadband services and necessary equipment. What does perpetual access mean for those without internet access when living in a society that continues to move basic services to online only environments? This could be noted with Census or Pew Research statistics in order to shine a light on how many people are lacking access.

Tone & Balance

The majority of content is written in a neutral tone, but there are few words to consider modifying.

"have garnered some more recent attention" Avoid using words that relatively refer to time and instead consider including the year the source this derived from was published. Words like "some" and "more" should also be more specific.
"Even so, licensing agreements do not always even include perpetual access." The use of even in this sentence implies the author's expectations around perpetual access. Consider removing or avoiding the use of language that implies the author's opinion.

Sources and References

All the content currently in this draft is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information with active links and appear to reflect what the cited sources say, although only one appears to be current. There should be more current sources cited throughout this draft, some of which may come from the publication currently included in the draft sources section by Polchow (2021).

Organization

Most sentences in this draft are well written, but it is lacking structure and there are no sentences or sections to tie concepts together. Each sentence on its own is concise, clear and easy to read with no spelling errors. Once this draft has more content organized into sections it may be easier to follow.

Images and Media

Images and media have yet to be added by the user in this draft. From a review of the current version of the article as well as the draft written by this user, I do not think there is any pertinent place where images or media would enhance the content.

Overall Impressions

This article draft is in the beginning stages with a few additional citations that will improve the overall quality of this article. Once there are sections and more content written the article will be closer to completion. This author can write well in the appropriate tone for Wikipedia and has many opportunities ahead of them to enhance this article.