User:He4150/Conservation and restoration of time-based media art/Hf1842 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Conservation and restoration of time-based media art


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead is well-done, with just enough detail to get the reader interested without giving away the details of the entire article.

Content

The content is fairly up to date, and could stand as it is, but could use some updated sources from newer than six years ago. However, the sources currently there are reliable and give a good balance of viewpoints for the article. The tone is not overly biased one way or another. It is very informative, without trying to persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources

The content does appear to be backed up by reliable sources. However, as mentioned above, the most current sources for the article are from 2015 as of now. Knowing how much technology changes, I believe that having sources from more recent years would be helpful for the article. I would also love to see more peer-reviewed articles, as well.

Organization

The content is very well written, without any major grammatical or spelling errors at this point. It is also very well-organized and broken down into many sections to help the reader understand the topic.

Images and Media

Since this article is talking about media and art, I believe that it would serve the article well to have images or possibly videos of the media that is being conserved and restored, or of that process, to help the reader better understand exactly what the article is talking about.

Overall Impressions

A very well-done article, with quite a bit of detail and content to help the reader understand the topic fully. Adding some images and more up-to-date sources would help the article improve even more, however, in my opinion.