User:Gs4446/DOCAM/Gainag Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Reviewing user Gs4446's DOCAM article.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gs4446/DOCAM


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

Lead
The lead was updated to reflect the updated information in the main body of the article. The additional information added to the lead is brief, but provides a good background for the information to come.

Content
All of the content is relevant and up to date, primarily focusing on the initiatives and activities of DOCAM. The lead give a very brief glimpse into the history of the organization, but they only mention the creation date and the organizations involved. A more thorough representation of the background of the organization would flesh out the article nicely. The draft author also stated that the program ran from 2005-2010, so it would also add another dimension to the article to discuss any lasting impacts that the DOCAM initiatives had on the media arts heritage field.

Tone and Balance
The information is presented in a neutral tone, free from bias and persuasion. No viewpoint is given any weight over another as there are no viewpoints presented at all, just information on the project of DOCAM in a matter of fact tone.

Sources and References
The sources seem up to date and properly reflect the information presented in the article draft. Roughly 75% of the references are secondary sources from writers and agencies outside of DOCAM.

Organization
This is the only other aspect of the article draft that raises concern, but that is due to the one sided nature of the information presented. There are only sub-headings that are assigned to each initiative, but the lack of a History or Impact section does not allow for any additional lager headings to break up the page.

Images and Media
The editor has not added any images or media to their draft, but this is not an article that lends well to a lot of images. Locating and adding an image of the logo would be enough.

Overall Impressions
The article is well written, free of any large grammatical and spelling errors, presenting the information in a focused and neutral manner. The additions of a History and Impact section would give greater dimension and meaning to the DOCAM initiatives covered and would help fill out the overall layout of the article.