User:Grannanj/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title
 * Email archiving


 * Article Evaluation
 * When first opening this page, Wikipedia alerts you that this article need improvement in several areas, including that it may include original research, more citations are needed, and that it in general needs to be updated. The article is Start-Class and Low-importance for both WikiProject Libraries and WikiProject Computing.  The fact that the article may contain original research shows an issue with neutrality.  Because it has not been updated in awhile, some of the information is outdated, especially those involving dates or time frames.  The Talk page does not emphasize any problems or troubleshooting with citations.  They only discuss the general layout of the article and the possibility of merging other articles.  While there are several sections within this article, making it easy to read and compartmentalize, they are short and provide only the bare minimum.  Some of the sections seem redundant in the information they provide, such as the "Definition" and "Overview" sections.  Only two of these sections have any citations.  It is unclear where the rest of the information came from.  One link does not work anymore and many of the others are simply links to associations.


 * Sources
 * https://www.clir.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2018/08/CLIR-pub175.pdf

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Archival science


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is considered Start-Class for both WikiProject Libraries and WikiProject History. It is of High-importance for History and Top-importance for Libraries.  The Talk page also has a few comments involving issues with citations and provenance.  However, these are older comments from around 2011.  The article also has a very active edit history, with its most recent edit occurring this past August.  The article itself has a Lead that provides a general background for an easy and quick understanding of the topic.  The contents includes several sections that are all relatively full.  However, this article is about a vast topic with much more information than what is included here.  The "History" section is very bare, considering it starts in the 1500s.  This general history continues into the other sections.  The section "Critical archival studies" may also need to be be updated.  The title of the section does not describe very well what the section is about.  Citations appear to be used often and there is at least one citation within each paragraph.  There are 29 references for the article.  All of the links still work.  The majority of the references are from professional journals.  The others are either from archival organizations or an archival dictionary.  What really needs to be done with this article is to add more information.


 * Sources
 * https://doaj.org/article/99e4fbe5aeaf4c2b9187cd06fb0345b0

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Netherlands Media Art Institute


 * Article Evaluation
 * First and foremost, the article has some grammatical issues. Although nothing is incorrect, there are certain aspects that make the reading a bit jarring, such as long sentences and the use of two different tenses: past and then present.  This does make reading it a little confusing as the institute no longer exists but the article is half written as though it is.  Those are simple, general issues, though.  There are only five references for the entire article, which, although short, does not provide citations for all of the facts provided.  Two of these resources are from the institute's website.  This article is Start-Class within the WikiProjects Netherlands.  That is not surprising.  The information provided is very general and there is not much there aside from the basic facts and history.  Some of the information on the institute's research projects, collections, or history could be expanded upon.  One thing that I think would be a good inclusion is what happened to the collections after the institute was closed.


 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Conservation and restoration of new media art


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article, although it appears to have quite a bit of information, is still considered Start-Class in four WikiProjects: Museums, Visual Arts, Internet Culture, and Library of Congress. It is of Low-importance in Museums and Library of Congress, and of High-importance in Internet culture.  The Talk page is lacking.  There is only one comment from 2007.  The references for the article are also lacking.  There are ten of them plus five that are not connected to any in text citations.  Wikipedia even provides a warning box at the top about the unverified references.  At the moment, the references are the main concern of the article.  The section on the Media Art Notation System uses only one reference which is from the system's and creator's original description.  It has no other outside sources.  After the references are sorted, it would be good to add more information.  There are many sections to this article, but none contain much information.  The section on "storage" would especially benefit from more information.  The "history" section also needs to be fixed as the list of individuals has no order and needs more organization.  The article also has a few spots where grammar needs to fixed, but that is a simple fix.


 * Sources
 * https://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/10.5334/jcms.1021227/
 * https://direct.mit.edu/leon/article/41/4/418/45266/Between-Real-and-Ideal-Documenting-Media-Art

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Digital heritage


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is rated Start-Class and Low-importance for seven WikiProjects. It is also rated Start-Class with no level of importance noted for the WikiProject Digital Preservation.  The Talk page has only one comment from 2015 about a possible merge with another page and the editing history shows only three total edits.  The actual article reflects this neglect with a very small amount of information.  It has a good Lead that provides a nice background, but the rest of the sections seems to have been quickly written out just to have something.  There are nine references which is a good number for the amount that is written.  All of the reference links still work and most of the references are from reputable sources such as journals.  The ones that are not also appear to be from reputable articles or organizations.  What little information is included in the article has citations attached.  The main problem is the lack of information.  What is included could be expanded upon.  the "Digital heritage studies" especially needs some work.  It contains only one sentence with three of the nine citations attached.


 * Sources
 * https://en.unesco.org/themes/information-preservation/digital-heritage/concept-digital-heritage
 * https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-32-9915-3_17