User:Jeriblank/New media art/Gs4446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jeriblank


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jeriblank/New_media_art


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

Lead

 * The source added to the sentence about performance art is a good, reliable addition and provides support to a sentence that would otherwise be unverified.
 * I did not see any other drafted changes to the lead, but I think there is a lot that could be edited from the current version to make it less wordy and confusing. Some of the sentences in the existing article are awkward to read and difficult to understand.

Content


 * There is only a little bit of content that has been added to the article, but the added content is all neutral, important to the topic of the article, and relatively up-to-date. My assumption is that the sections of the existing article that were not copied over will not be removed from the final article, but simply have not been updated in this draft.
 * The addition of information about the Digital Curation Centre's digital curation lifecycle model is very pertinent; one suggestion would be to explain how new media art fits into the model in slightly more detail for readers who are not familiar with the model.
 * Although I think the information about the Time and Bits conference provides good history and context, I question whether there is a newer source that can provide more information about digital preservation issues and obsolescence. 1998 is quite a while ago in the context of digital preservation. Perhaps this is included to provide support/context for the assertion that these issues came to the forefront in the mid-1990s. Are there other debates/discussions that have occurred more recently that could be referenced instead? What are the current issues?

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral and does not attempt to sway the reader in one direction or another. Great job with this.

Sources and References


 * Nice job adding balanced and well-researched sources to points in the existing article that were unverified/uncited prior to your draft. The Colin Post article supporting the Digital Curation Centre digital curation model was an especially good add.
 * As noted in the content section, the Time and Bits conference is a little dated in the context of this article. I think it's okay to include as a piece of history, but it would be great to add more recent sources regarding digital longevity.
 * It appears that the references section has accidentally been included twice in the article.

Organization


 * The content that was added is well-written and clear without major grammatical or spelling errors. The structure is organized and makes sense.

Overall Impressions
Great start! Although not much has been added to the article yet, what has been added contributes well to the article. One area to focus on might be re-writing and/or expanding the section about digital longevity to add more digital preservation and curation information. About 140 words have been added, so several more words will need to be added to meet the assignment's 800-word target.