User:He4150/Conservation and restoration of time-based media art/Ha1154 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Conservation and restoration of new media art

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]
Peer review

Lead:

Guiding questions:

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

''Lead section is missing. I assume it is the "Article Draft" section. Lead is incorrectly placed below the contents section. Lead does not appear to have been modified.''

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?

''No, lead is only a description of the topic. Article sections are not mentioned''

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

No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead concise but lacks other sections of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes,

Is the content added up-to-date?

''Biggest contribution is to the preservation tools section. Many additional tools were added.''

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Seeing double appears to be a history topic instead of a strategy.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Unknown.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

Yes, New content sticks to the factual information.

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

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

''Article makes references to several people not famous enough to have a wiki page, link to blank page. This is a specialized topic so focus on some key people is not surprising.''

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

Article maintains neutral tone.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

''Due to Wikipedia redirects I cannot access bibliography page. Significant edits have been made to the references section. Many of the older entries have been removed.''

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

''A lot of the references are from websites of tools. The reference in Archivematica has quotes. This may be considered plagiarism by Wikipedia. PRONOM does this too.''

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

Many are websites, not journals.

Are the sources current?

''Majority of references were retrieved 2021... from websites these will likely change over time and be lost.''

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

Unknown.

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.)

''There is a large discrepancy between original references and the new. Some were updates. I would ensure that citations were not accidentally deleted. Many references are websites not scholarly. I would like to see each preservation tool have a reference back to its creator or parent company at the very least.''

Check a few links. Do they work?

''Spot check of links worked. Link #3 is broken. Link #8 is partially broken. Crosslinks appear to have been destroyed from original. They might not appear in draft form.''

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

''Yes, mostly addition and expansion of existing articles. Easy to consume, the rewording adds value.''

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

I was not able to detect any errors.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

''I really like the additions and reordering. Lead is incorrectly placed.''

Images and Media

N/A.