User:Grannanj/Digital heritage/Madisonroberts97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Grannanj


 * 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
The lead has been updated and it looks great! I love the detailed explanation of what digital heritage is, why it exists and what it is not. This seems particularly important for this article because digital humanities is a very similar topic and readers could be easily confused about that. The lead does not include a description of the main sections. I would say that is the main thing that needs to be improved with the lead. It is already pretty concise and does not go off-topic at all. I would say added in the description of the major sections or a "roadmap" of the article would be the only improvement needed.

Content
The added content is absolutely relevant to the topic. I can see how everything ties in so far. If anything I would expect more Digital Heritage Studies section. There is also an opportunity under Cultural and Natural Heritage to list some examples. I know you listed Notre Dame, but I think you could separate that out under another sub-heading and even list other examples if you can find any. The examples really drive your point home. The content doesn't really address any equity gaps. This would be another reason I would add in a few more examples. You could use examples from underrepresented cultures. Notre Dame is pretty well-known, but I'm sure you could find something that is less well-known to a white audience like something from an indigenous culture.

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral. It does not try to sway toward one opinion or another. I don't think anything is over or underrepresented. You could maybe go more in-depth with the technologies and strategies of digital heritage.

Sources and References
You have a decent selection of sources here and every claim is backed up with multiple sources throughout the paragraph. I do think the content accurately reflects the sources and the sources chosen are authoritative and reliable. I do, however, think you could use a wider range of sources. Seven sources really isn't enough for an article of this length. I would say aim for around 15 sources. You want to include a wide variety of viewpoints and types of sources. Try to get some books, articles, conference proceedings, organization webpages, posters, videos, etc.

Organization
I don't think there is much to work on in this section. Everything seems well-organized and on-topic without grammatical or spelling errors! :)

Images and Media
The article does not have any images or media yet. I think there are some really clear places to add them like when you talk about Notre Dame and any other examples you add. You could also add images of any of the technology you mention especially if it's something an average person not involved in the information profession wouldn't recognize.

Overall Impressions
The article is definitely more complete and well-rounded with these additions. There has been some really great content added here. I would focus on adding more examples and expanding information on technologies and strategies. Looking forward to seeing even more improvements!