User:Gs4446/DOCAM/Lady Halfwolf Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gs4446


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gs4446/DOCAM?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * I think you did a good job making the lead section a lot clearer than it is in the original.
 * One suggestion I have is somehow incorporating the outputs of the committee into the lead section. You do mention educational tools and solutions, but I almost think that there needs to be a brief statement to give a general idea of what this committee produced. Something similar to the last sentence under the DOCAM Initiatives section might be useful to someone who is just looking for a brief overview of DOCAM.

Content


 * It was very important that you update the article to reflect that this happened in the past! Not like the current version, which makes it sound like it is still happening.
 * The content you added really helps further the understanding of this topic. I think you did a great job summarizing the key points of each committee, along with stating the overall purpose of DOCAM.

Tone and Balance


 * Good use of neutral tone.
 * I like how you used multiple sources to support points - this was something I should have paid more attention to in my article! Using multiple sources to support ideas is a great way to show balance and reliability in the statements you are making.

Sources and References


 * Great job at using a lot of secondary sources vs primary sources.
 * The sources you chose are appropriate for this topic.
 * Even though this was an older topic, I was glad to see a few more recent sources.
 * For source #8, it says "check date values." If you click edit source, it should give you an option to manually type the date in a different format to get rid of this error.
 * Is there a source for this? "For example, in order to re-display media arts created on obsolete systems, a decision must be made regarding whether to migrate the work to a new format or attempt to display the work in its original context using an emulator." - located under DOCAM Initiatives

Organization


 * Huge improvement from the original!
 * I like how you start off with a broad section of the DOCAM initiatives and then break it down by committees. Having these subsections really helps people process information, at least in my personal experience.
 * The content is well-written and easy to understand.

Overall Impressions


 * I think you did a great job of adding relevant information to this article that helps further the reader's understanding.
 * Strengths
 * Well-structured and succinct content
 * Greatly improved the flow of the article from the original, and updated the lead section to reflect the changes
 * Good use of secondary sources to support ideas
 * Neutral and balanced
 * Word count is around 650.
 * I would be interested in more information being added to the Cataloging Structure section, assuming there is more information to add about suggestions or best practices to follow.
 * It also might be useful/helpful to have a section with key players? Were there any institutions that played a large role in DOCAM? (other than the two mentioned in the lead section)
 * Great job!!!