User:Gainag/Digital Preservation Coalition/Madisonroberts97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gainag


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Digital heritage

Lead
The lead is not very updated at all. In fact, it is just one sentence. The sentence does explain nicely and succinctly what the Digital Preservation Coalition is, but it does not go into detail and is not reflective of the rest of the article.

Content
The content is definitely relevant to the topic. Everything here is exactly related to the DPC, but there isn't much information on their strategies or initiatives. I would add some more information on what makes them important in the world of digital preservation and curation. The history section is also very small. I would definitely expand on that. That is an awesome place to bulk up the article. You can talk about past conferences, presentations, and outreach events. You could talk about influential leadership and impact on the information field as well as the wider world. I would also add a section on impact where you talk about new strategies or initiatives they have started and what is now standard practice because of the DPC.

The information seems to all be up to date. There is no content here that does not belong, but there is missing content described above. The article does not address an equity gap. I would try to see if the DPC has worked to include minority voices in preservation. Has there been any pushback against the DPC? Don't paint the DPC in a perfect light if there have been any controversies.

Tone and Balance
The content added so far is definitely neutral. I think it would be difficult with the matter-of-fact information added so far to have too much of a bias. The only thing I would be conscious of is adding any information about pushback or controversies. It is important to show all sides of a topic.

The big underrepresentation that I noticed is not a particular viewpoint, but the lack of information on history of the organization. This seems like a really important section of the article and one I would scroll to right away if I was a reader. This also seems like a great opportunity to include information on influential past leadership. I know that individuals are often what makes an organization great and impactful, so it seems like a missed opportunity to not highlight those individuals here.

The content does not try to persuade the reader of anything.

Sources and References
I think everything for the most part is backed up by sources and references. There are a few missing citations. You don't have any citations under "Full members" and "Associate members." You do provide information there and even if it's coming from the same source you used above, I would probably cite it again because you are providing new information under new sub-headings.

The content does accurately reflect the sources, the sources are current, and the links work.

I would not say that the sources are thorough or reflective of a diverse spectrum of authors. These are definitely things I would work on when revising. I would aim for 15-20 sources from a variety of backgrounds. You could cite people who have written about or referenced the DPC in their work or even presentation and lectures done by the DPC themselves.

Organization
The content here is definitely concise and easy to read. I would not focus on that too much in your revisions. I would focus on expanding and trusting that your reader can handle and wants more information. There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors.

The only thing that I would change as far as organization is maybe breaking down the history section into sub-sections where you go into detail on various aspects of the history of the organization. I would also probably add a section on the impacts of the DPC within the wider field and maybe even other fields.

Images and Media
Right now, there are no images or media in the draft or the published article. There are some great opportunities here to add images of the strategies being implemented, of influential leadership, etc.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I would say you're off to a great start! You've got some good information that is very concise and accurate. When you work on expanding that and giving your audience more of the detailed information they want, I know it will be a great article.