User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital obsolescence/Grannanj Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Flanagan Institute Applicant


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Flanagan Institute Applicant/Digital obsolescence
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Digital obsolescence

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - After looking at the original article, I'm assuming your first section titled "Digital Obsolescence" is the lead which you added more to. The information you have added is good and provides some relevant and useful facts on the topic that weren't included before. I would look at the second sentence again as I think you may have missed a linking verb or conjugated another verb wrong, making the sentence read weird.

Content - The content you provide is all relevant and really helps to explain digital obsolescence in more detail. It is good that you provide a description of the four types of digital obsolescence. You could add a little more information in the "Background" section to provide a more general background/history of the topic. It may also help to add a sentence or two on obsolescence and preservation. You mention preservation a few times throughout the page regarding how it is impacted by obsolescence but there is no specific statement on why they are connected that could tie all of this information together. I'm not sure I was able to describe this very well, so feel free to message me if you don't understand.

Tone and Balance - The tone of the whole draft is good. It is neutral and discusses only the facts.

Sources and References - You have a good amount of sources for the amount of information you provided. They also all seem to be from reliable sources or journals and include many types of sources. I would like to note that the link for your reference #18 takes you to the ZDNet main page and not to the article. Also, you have a small quoted phrase in your "Background" section that does not have a citation attached to it. You may also want to add a citation to the end of the four types of obsolescence. Other than those small things, your references and citations are good.

Organization - The organization of the page is very good. I appreciate the use of subtopics and the bulleted list. It makes it all easier to read and the page more pleasant to look at. The information is provided in a concise and clear format. I would suggest that you might consider breaking up some of your sentences. Some of them get very long and are difficult to follow. For example, your Lead section contains only two sentences which could easily be broken up in some of the places you use commas. Also, you may want to read back through your draft more thoroughly as there were a few other grammar mistakes aside from the one I mentioned in the Lead. These are small mistakes so they are easy to miss, especially when writing, so I just want to make sure you watch out for them.

Images and Media - There were no images or other media added to this draft. To me that seems alright as I'm not sure myself where you could add an image in. Perhaps of some old hardware or video games?

Overall Impressions - Overall this is a good draft. It is informative and easy to read. My main suggestions are to add a little more information to the "Background" section, provide a little more specific statements regarding preservation, and fix some of the grammar mistakes. I know this is a draft, but you should definitely look out for the grammar before you officially post it. Grannanj (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)