User:Mbruce21/Database preservation/Flanagan Institute Applicant Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mbruce21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mbruce21/Database_preservation&oldid=1051703962
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Database preservation

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article's leader in its current draft is well-written, but the contents read more like it's functioning as the introduction of an academic assignment than the introduction of an encyclopedic article. Consider discarding terms including "as such" and "therefore", and focus more on simply defining the subject of database preservation and summarizing its role. It's important to make sure that the leader also provides a brief summary of the overall article and its contents, so the reader understands the whole scope of the article.

The "Database Characteristics" section is a welcome addition to the article compared to its current, publicly available state, This section does an excellent job of describing how preservation has a role in the different type of databases, although an additional proofreading is recommended, and also making sure that the subject matter is understandable to those outside of the LIS and database fields (topic comprehension being an occasional problem for the more scientifically niche Wiki articles). Might want to consider italicizing the subject words when discussing the three preservation methods in the second half of the section, for visual clarity, and also expanding on the individual migration methods beyond their identification. This whole section has a perfectly technical and neutrally phased point of view, which should be maintained for the rest of the article.

Article sections are clearly separated and present distinct ideas, although the "CHRONOS" section could use more background for context. Avoid using acronyms, such as DBMS, without defining them. Linking key terms to their respective articles can also help the overall article feel less orphaned and isolated from the rest of the site and related topics. Break up the text in the "RODA and Database Preservation Toolkit" section so that the material isn't one large paragraph, which most readers find difficult to follow. If the "SIRAD" section of the original article is still relevant to the current or future drafts, consider adding a tonally consistent revised version (if need be, go back to the original cited resources and create new ones that provide a better fit).

Another thing to consider throughout the body of the article is to add dates when relevant to the topics of projects and protocol, to give the reader chronological perspective of when database preservation became important and when developments were made. Add a section for important external links elsewhere on the Web, and a "See Also" section for relevant Wikipedia articles on related subjects. The number of cited references is currently about half of the ten sources recommended by assignments so far: additionally, the number of cited passages through the text appears a little anemic. Current draft does slightly exceed the 800 word expectation for the assignment.

Overall, this draft for the Database Preservation article is a good start for a revised article with a number of core concepts in place and described. The main areas to recommend focusing on, therefore, are constructing a strong leader section, maintaining a neutral, encyclopedic tone through the piece, making sure the topics are easily comprehensible to a reader outside of the specialization, and enhancing the article with the hyperlinking that Wikipedia allows. Keep up the great work.