User:Grannanj/Digital heritage/He4150 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Grannanj/Digital heritage


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


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

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Yes, the changes made have been beneficial to the article.


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

Yes.


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

Yes, the lead does a good job of providing the 4 major sections in the article.


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

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is detailed but in a concise way. I personally think that it provides great information for what is contained in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yea, the tone is neutral


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

No.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Not particularly.


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

No, the content does a good job of staying neutral. I would just maybe take out the my additions part.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

yes.


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

Yes, all content that I have looked at has been cited to reflect the documents sources.


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

Considering I have not done much research on said topic it would be hard for me to answer this question fairly. I do however think that maybe the article could be expanded a bit overall.


 * Are the sources current?

From what I have seen yes.


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

I am not sure.


 * 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.)

I think the information the article provides about the sources, but their is always an opportunity to add more to make the article even more solid


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes. from what I have seen the article links are live

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, the addition make the article more inviting.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Yes the images are captioned and are done well.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes, I believe they do.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes the images are laid out in a way that is beneficial to the material.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The content has absolutely improved this article and the article actually looks like it was well thought out and time was taken to complete compared to the original.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Overall, I think the article additions add depth and quality to the article. Additional references made the article more reliable and helpful to researchers on the topic. The addition of the images was also a great touch. Overall the article looks much better than it did previously.


 * How can the content added be improved?

The only thing I can think of would be to expand the article a bit in possible new topics or adding resource links or examples of projects surrounding the topic.