User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation and restoration of new media art/Gs4446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Madisonroberts97


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Madisonroberts97/Conservation_and_restoration_of_new_media_art?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Lead

 * The lead has not been updated much since the original draft, but I think this is okay as it the first sentence is already quite clear and concise.
 * It does look like a citation may have been removed at the end of the statement about the vulnerability of rapid technological obsolescence; not sure if this was intentional or just deleted by mistake?
 * It may be helpful to include a brief summary or description of the article's sections within the lead. The second paragraph of the lead discusses reasons for the conservation and restoration of new media art and why it is important. If a description of the article's major sections would otherwise make the lead too wordy, maybe the current second paragraph could logically be removed and placed into its own section.

Content

 * The added content is relevant to the topic and neutral. The author does a great job with a neutral tone that is unbiased and does not attempt to persuade the reader in one direction or another. The article is balanced, and there is no viewpoint that is underrepresented or overrepresented.

Sources and References

 * Some of the added content includes references, but other segments do not have references tied to them or the references are at the end of the paragraph rather than tied to each sentence. For example, in the Reinterpretation section, I would recommend removing the last sentence and bringing the citation/reference up to the end of the first sentence of the section.
 * A lot of the current/existing information in the article appears to be unverified/uncited. Dr. B. mentioned focusing on new information and new citations, but since this article is fairly well-developed maybe it is possible to find sources for these items and add additional content as well? The Individual Efforts and Consortium Efforts existing sections have very few references.

Organization

 * I really like the structure and I think it makes sense to move the relation to other preservation efforts to the end. You could consider moving the "history" section for the beginning of the article to make it chronological, but I also think it would be fine to make the choice to keep it near the end because it is not the key piece of the article.

Overall Impressions


 * I would be interested to potentially know more information about the preservation tools and processes and the strengths/weaknesses of each - why would a professional/institution choose one tool over another?
 * It was slightly difficult to determine the word count since many of the sections of this longer article were added/rewritten, but you have definitely met the 800-word requirement. It looks like about 983 words have been added.
 * You did a great job finding additional information and adding to the article. Nice work!