User:Gp1791/Digital Inheritance/Ha1154 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

GP1791


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:He4150/Conservation_and_restoration_of_time-based_media_art?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead:

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

''Lead has been updated. Lead is incorrectly placed below the contents section.''

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Introductory sentence is greatly improved.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Lead does not match article formats with inappropriate paragraph breaks.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead is not very concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Half of the articles in the bibliography would be considered up to date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Overall content is comprehensive.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Unknown.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, wordsmithing has increased the readability.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

''This is an article about legal fact. Has benefits, missing detractors.''

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Article maintains neutral tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

''The bibliography is larger than the number of added sources. This edit is still in progress.''

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

''Yes, however it is likely that the legal decisions referenced have been expanded or changed since the articles were cited. This is outside of the scope of this project.''

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

''A lot of links to HeinOnline. Many others are from blogs and news sites.''

Are the sources current?

No most links are more about eight years old.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Unknown.

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.)

''Majority of links eight years old. These are likely obsolete.''

Check a few links. Do they work?

Spot check of links worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

An enjoyable read.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I was not able to detect any errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization is good, lead is incorrectly placed.

Images and Media

N/A