User:Drpencil9/Howard Besser/Gainag Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Drpencil9


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drpencil9/Howard_Besser?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead
The editor provided a new lead to bring in aspects of the information they are adding to the existing article, but it feels much too long and provides too much information than necessary. There is a lot of biographical information crammed into the lead in sort of a choppy list, some of which seems copied over from the Biography section of the existing article. Remove some of the biographical information and streamline what you want to include so it can be paired down to a brief statement. The lead from the existing includes his involvement in Dublin Core and METS, two very important standards in our field.

Content
I hoped that since the Dublin Core and METS information was removed from the lead in that it would reappear in the body, but it does not. This information should absolutely be reintroduced to the draft article. The editor has created a lot of separate sections of their article, but they are each very brief. The "Timeline" section only covers Besser's life from 1974-1989, but he was born in 1952 and is still alive. This section could be improved if the editor sticks with the "Biography" label provided in the existing article and supplemented the information found there with new information from more current sources if possible.

The Reporting, Study, and Preservation sections are all copied and pasted from the articles cited. I'm not sure what the editor is trying to achieve with these sections, but they will certainly bring up a copyright violation and need to be removed immediately. If the editor wishes to include information from these sources they must paraphrase it in their own words and with proper context.

Tone and Balance
The reporting section does nothing but add the words and opinions of Besser, something that is to be avoided in a wikipedia article. It shifts the bias heavily in the direction of the article subject, away from the necessary neutral tone that must be present.

Sources and References
The reference list is rather small and is comprised of information created by or with Besser, the focus of the article. More secondary sources are needed to provide an outside and neutral bias to the information provided in this article.

Organization
The editor has created additional headings to break up the body of the article, but they did not change the format of the text, so the headings end up blending into the rest of the text, losing their intended affect of dividing the text. If the editor wishes to keep these headings they should change the format of those headings to one of the "subheading" options from the drop down menu above.

Images and Media
The editor has included no images or media, even though the existing article provides a video of the article subject speaking with a colleague on a scholarly topic. The editor should look for an image of Besser to place at the top of the article to accompany their draft.

Overall Impressions
I am not entirely sure what the editor is trying to achieve with their draft. It seems as if they are trying to reinvent the article with stating where they are trying to insert the sections they are creating. They shifted a lot of biographical information from the body of the existing article to their new lead, which defeats the purpose of the old biographical section while defeating the purpose of a concise lead into their article. The biggest red flags are the copy and paste sections in their article. These need to be addressed as soon as possible to prevent any issues of copyright violation and academic dishonesty with the university. The editor needs to find more secondary sources to bring in more information if they want to address the bias of the article away from the literal words of the article subject.