User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition/Grannanj Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gainag


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Digital Preservation Coalition

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead - You kept the original lead, which is very concise and I think does a good job of quickly describing what the article is. Since you added more information, you may be able to add a little more to the lead, but it should be fine how it is.

Content - You added a lot more information to this article which was definitely lacking originally. It is all relevant to the article and I think adds to the overall article. I especially like the description of the members. For the "Mission" section, I'm assuming it has to do with the company's mission. If so, it may help to mention that specifically in the opening paragraph as right now it doesn't seem like it and I'm a bit confused as to what "Mission" is actually referencing. I might just be reading it wrong, though. If possible, it might be nice to add examples of each type of member in the last section.

Tone and Balance - The article is written in very concise and neutral language. The information added is also neutral. Since this is about a company, it would be difficult to find information about it from sources other than the company's own website. However, you have done a good job finding other sources to help provide more neutral and impartial information.

Sources and References - You have several sources that are relevant to the topic. As I mentioned before, you have found several sources that are not a part of the company. I think it would be nice if you could find a few more so that a greater majority are not from the company itself. This will also give you the chance of using references from more current and diverse sources. Also, four of your sources do not have clickable links, so you may want to look into that. The ones that do have links all still work.

Organization - The organization of your article is good. It all flows nicely. The sections and subsections all make the article easy to read and pleasing to the eye. There is nothing that I would change regarding organization. The writing is good and there does not appear to be any grammar mistakes or awkward sentences.

Images and Media - There are no images or other types of media so I cannot make any direct reviews of that. I am not sure if an image would be too important in this instance so you should be fine as is.

Overall Impression - Overall I think the article is very good. It adds quite a bit of information to the original article and I think provides a more well-rounded picture of the topic. You may want to find a few more current articles and add a little more information in the "Membership" or even "History" sections.