User:Mbruce21/Database preservation/Gs4446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mbruce21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mbruce21/Database_preservation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Database preservation

Lead

 * I really like the points that you are making in the lead, and I think they are important to the article. It does feel a little incomplete. I think you are missing a really powerful lead-in sentence that summarizes what the article is about. If someone comes to the article and reads just the first few sentences, would they have a good "elevator pitch" understanding of the topic? Right now I am not sure that they would, but I think you will be there with a few changes.
 * I haven't researched the topic as thoroughly as you have, so I'm not sure if there is a reason you removed the wording from the lead of the current article. I think something similar to that would be great as they appear to do a good job explaining what database preservation is. Could you possibly use the current lead and tweak/reword it in combination with some of the language you have added?

Content

 * The section about database characteristics is a wonderful add! This is key to database preservation and really helps me to understand the topic.
 * I like the inclusion of information about RODA. Are there any other database preservation projects that are important and would add to the understanding of this topic? I noticed that the original article linked to LOCKSS, which is a project I have heard about frequently during the SIS program. Would it make sense to add a section about LOCKSS and/or any other similar projects?

Tone and Balance

 * Overall, the tone and balance of this article is neutral and well-done. I am curious about the inclusion of CHRONOS as a proprietary solution for database preservation. Is there a reason this particular solution is highlighted? Are there other proprietary solutions you could include as well, or is there something unique or special about this particular solution that warrants inclusion in the article? If it is important and unique, you could add a few sentences to explain this. If not, maybe it would be better to include a generic section discussing common features and the importance of proprietary solutions.

Sources and References

 * I appreciated the inclusion of trusted, peer-reviewed sources.
 * There are only a few sources included. Are there other sources you could find that would create additional support for the information you include in the article? The section about RODA seemed to be somewhat long to only have one reference. Has anyone else published on this topic?
 * It seems like database preservation would be an area that is rapidly changing with new technology, but most of the articles cited are over a decade old. Is there any newer research that might add support to your article?

Organization

 * I thought that the article was structured well and easy to read. The only thing I can think of in terms of structure is that perhaps instead of sections for CHRONOS and RODA, you could have one section for software/tools and one for projects, and have the specific tools and projects listed as additional subheadings under these sections.
 * In the database section where you discuss database characteristics, consider using formatting (maybe a bulleted list or similar) to make the section discussing migration, emulation, and XML easier to read.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I think you have a wonderful start to a draft and you did a great job following Wikipedia's guidelines. I think there is still a lot that could be contributed to this article in terms of additional tools or projects utilizing database preservation, but I also understand that for this assignment it may be too big of an undertaking since this topic is so broad. You are just over the 800 words contributed mark and you are in great shape for the assignment word count requirements. Nice work!