User:Lady Halfwolf/Digital repatriation/Gp1791 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Lady Halfwolf


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Lady Halfwolf/Digital repatriation


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

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : There are no new additions or rewrites to the article's lead section.

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? : Yes, but could use some expansion - see two questions down.

Is the content added up-to-date? : Yes, the content is pulled from sources that are from within the last 5-10 years.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I like that you added sections on Software & Technology and some expanded examples, but I would have also liked to see more discussion on the ethical considerations. There is a sentence in this section in the original article that I thought was the most intriguing part of the section and it also has no citation: "While digital repatriation can provide access to objects for which physical repatriation is complicated or unlikely, originating cultures may not be satisfied with this option." If there are sources out there to support it, I think this idea could definitely be expanded. It would also work to show a varying viewpoint on digital repatriation within cultural communities. Why would some communities NOT be in favor of digital repatriation? Perhaps some would feel insulted by institutions who "allow" them access to a digital copy of their cultural object rather than returning the actual object and the institution keeping the digital copy for their own reference? The idea of the digital divide you bring up and the idea of digitized sacred/secret objects being potentially problematic are also interested topics to explore more I think. De-colonizing museums has been a growing movement around the world - perhaps there's some interesting sources to be found from those discussions.

I was also intrigued by the Intangible Heritage section you added and would love to see that expanded as well and how it relates to digital repatriation concerns.

Perhaps the article would also benefit from a more expanded definition of digital repatriation than what is said in the Lead section. For instance, after reading the article plus your additions, I have questions like: is digital repatriation simply digitized cultural objects that originating cultures are then given access to? Or does the term also encompass things like what you outline in the examples - indigenous communities taking control over description/access controls of their material? I think the article could benefit from a clear overview of everything the term digital repatriation could encompass before launching into all the other interesting sections you've added.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? : Absolutely! This is a very important topic that tries to shift the agency of cultural heritage work to indigenous and underrepresented communities.

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?: For the most part. See discussions below.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? : Overall, no. However, the second sentence under Software & Technology stood out to me while I was reading: "These developments can benefit Indigenous communities by expanding access." The sentence implies that digital repatriation is something that "indigenous communities" as a monolithic group want and would benefit from, when that might not be the case. Particularly because of what is mentioned elsewhere in the article, i.e. the digital divide and/or problematic digitizing of sacred/secret material.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? : Any viewpoints from originating cultures against digital repatriation could be more represented (though I'm not sure how easy or difficult it might be to find sources on this viewpoint that center indigenous voices). I suppose this would also depend on the parameters of the term digital repatriation. If it just involves the digitization of cultural objects, I'm sure there are opinions against it out there. But if it has more to do with originating cultures gaining authority over the display and description of their own cultural material, I imagine there would be minimal if any negative opinions. So, depends on how digital repatriation is defined in the article.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? : When reading it, it seems like the article is overall in favor of digital repatriation efforts, and it might be more balanced with the addition of the viewpoints described above (though again, perhaps there isn't enough sources on anti-digital repatriation viewpoints to warrant them being included, but I think it might be worth looking).

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? : Yes - great job making sure every claim is cited!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) : From what I'm able to tell, yes!

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? : Yes, but like I said above, perhaps there's some literature out there that's not necessarily in favor of sending originating cultures digital surrogates rather than the digital objects themselves. Perhaps this viewpoint can be found in literature about de-colonizing museums.

Are the sources current?: Yes, all sources are from within the last 5-10 years.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Yes! Especially the sources about Spinuuk and the Passamaquoddy project.

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.) : Good job with your research! All of the sources are either from peer-reviewed journals or are from the official websites of the software tools discussed or the digital collections of indigenous communities (the website of the Passamaquoddy People was super interesting and I enjoyed browsing through it and listening to the audio files of the language!)

Check a few links. Do they work? : Reference #7 gives a Page not Found error.

Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? : Yes, good job!

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? : I noticed a few grammatical errors and a couple sentences that didn't quite make sense. "IP" under the Local Contexts subsection should be spelled out. Otherwise, good!

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : Yes, good use of section and subsection headings. The sections and organization is logical.

Overall impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? : Overall, good job! The content you added about softwares and real examples of projects I think centers the article more around the agency of indigenous communities managing their own cultural material. This in itself makes your content a great addition to the original article!

What are the strengths of the content added? : See question above.

How can the content added be improved? : See my discussion in earlier sections about more clearly defining what digital repatriation entails and providing differing opinions among indigenous communities regarding different types of digital repatriation.