User:Madisonroberts97/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Conservation and restoration of new media art

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to the concepts in this class really well. I was really drawn to the uncited comment about obsolescence. I agree that it is a problem, but the author did not cite where that claim came from. It was very easy for me to find an authoritative source agreeing. I was also drawn to this article because of how specific it is. It is not a broad topic of "digital conservation" or "digital preservation" or even a technique of conservation and preservation. It is an article about the specific conservation of new media. I figured it would be easier to find sources on a more specific topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section of this article definitely draws in the reader. I was drawn in by the challenges of obsolescence. I think the lead sentence concisely describes the challenges, but not necessarily the concept itself. It does set it apart from other types of conservation, but I think that could be done in the second sentence or even the second paragraph. The lead does not include a description of the sections to come in any form. The lead basically describes the challenges then moves on. I do wish that obsolescence was addressed later on in the article. It's a really strong point, and it's really only referenced in the lead section. I think there could be an entire section on combatting obsolescence.

Content

The content is absolutely relevant to the topic. I would say that the content doesn't go in-depth enough. It is up to date because they reference specific techniques of preservation and even specific conferences and initiatives, but there isn't enough detail or enough citations for what has been said. The article does not address any equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

I don't think the author has a specific point of view that they are skewing towards. I will say that the article in unbalanced in that it focuses heavily on conferences and initiatives within conservation of new media rather than on the techniques themselves. While I think that is valuable information that some readers will want to know about, many readers will come to this page expecting to learn in-depth information on the preservation itself. I think that the initiatives could be a good source for that type of information. Maybe someone could visit those website and look at the materials published by the people involved then use that as information and citations to include in the "Preservation Strategies" section.

Overall, the article does a good job of remaining neutral and not swaying toward any particular viewpoint. I don't know that there are any fringe viewpoints out there on this topic, but if there are, the author stays away from them. I do really like that specific initiatives are mentioned. I just wish it focused more on the strategies and techniques.

Sources and References

I do think there are some good sources cited here. I will say that I don't think they are cited enough. There is a good variety of scholarly articles and conference proceedings in the references section. That being said, there are many places throughout the article that a citation would be appropriate but it is not included. There are way too many uncited claims. The lead section especially needs to have more citations. While there are a few citations throughout the strategies section, every single statement needs to be cited. That doesn't mean every sentence needs to have a citation at the end, but there needs to be many more. I think a lot of the information came from the same place, but that needs to be noted too. After those citations go in, there needs to be some variety added. The entire section can't rely on the same source. That is especially true for something subjective like this where there could be many different strategies performed many different ways.

Organization and Writing Quality

I do not like the organization of this article at all. I do think there are good points made in every section, but "Relationship to other preservation efforts" should not be the first section after the lead. Honestly, that section should go toward the end of the article and definitely after the strategies and tools. I understand why it is included, but the organization is all wrong. There also needs to be a section added on obsolescence since it is so important in this topic. That section should be toward the beginning of the article. While the short sections and paragraphs are easy to read, they are too short. That makes for poor writing quality as well as poor informational value.

Images and Media

There are no images or media in this article. For an article about new media preservation, there should be more media than in an average Wikipedia article. The images could display different strategies, tools, conference proceedings, etc.

Talk Page Discussion

There is almost no talk page discussion. There is one comment from a user talking about a proposal for deletion. I assume they are talking about deletion of the page. They mention copyright violations and working on the article to improve. There is definitely some major room for improvement, but I do not think the page should be deleted. It is part of several strong Wikiprojects.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I'm excited to start working on this article. I think there are some great things that could be done with it and I think there are some great sources that could be used. I think the specificity of the article is what gives it so much potential. There are definitely some good strengths in the discussion of the professional organizations, but there is some major room for improvement in citations. The strategies and tools sections could definitely be boosted and there is room for a really great section on obsolescence.

I would say that this article in undeveloped. Clearly someone put some work into it at some point, but it could be updated and cited better.