User:Mgordier/Perpetual access/Gp1791 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

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: The first sentence of the Lead has been updated. It is an improvement over the first sentence of the original article, but still leaves the reader slightly confused. Maybe mention that this is an issue in the library field specifically rather than just "institutions."

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes!

Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, the sources used date from within the last 10-15 years.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The contributions are far below the 800 word minimum for our assignment, so there is a lot more content that could be added. As a reader, I would want to know more about the history of perpetual access agreements (when they first started happening and how they have evolved over time). Some short case study examples of perpetual access disputes between libraries/publishers or how libraries navigate the ongoing digital preservation issues of perpetual access might also be a good way to boost reader comprehension of the topic.

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?: For the most part.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: I'm not sure if this is a big thing or not, but since perpetual access is an issue with clear dichotomous parties involved (libraries and publishers), a truly balanced article would discuss the perspectives of both sides. The added content gives off the feeling of being biased towards the libraries side (which is not surprising considering the program we're in). Perhaps delving into more of the history of these perpetual access disputes might bring in more of the publisher's arguments/perspective.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Library perspective, see above.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: Perhaps slightly in favor of the libraries side of the argument - see above.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Good job adding a citation for every point!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.): Yes, from what I can tell.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: A majority of the sources are from one journal, The Serials Librarian. Maybe branch out to some other publications. If you're able to find articles on perpetual access from publisher-focused academic journals, those would be very interesting contributions!

Are the sources current?: Yes, all within the last 10-15 years. Though perhaps trends in perpetual access agreements have changed significantly since 10-15 years ago?

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Not able to determine the diversity of the source authors.

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.): Good job with finding peer-reviewed journal articles.

Check a few links. Do they work?: All links working. The dates need to be fixed in the Wikipedia citations for sources 6, 7, and 9. Source 8 requires login info to access (an ALA account I think?)

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Overall yes. Some sentences could use some clarification to make their points more understandable.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: Some grammatical errors throughout.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Added content has no section headings. Needs a lot of expansion.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Yes, adds needed content to the original article, but the added content needs to be greatly expanded.

What are the strengths of the content added?: Improves the Lead sentence and adds some overall clarity to the original article with good examples.

How can the content added be improved?: Expand everything!