User:Mbruce21/Database preservation/Lady Halfwolf 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * I'm guessing what you're adding to the lead section is directly under "Article Draft" on your sandbox draft? It seems like a good addition to what is included in the original article.
 * I would get rid of the "Therefore" in the third sentence.

Content


 * The content you added is relevant to Database Preservation. There was a lot of fundamental information missing from the original article. I think adding in the database characteristics section was a great idea to enhance the article. You include a lot of necessary information that helps readers understand a complex topic.

Tone and Balance


 * The tone of the added content is neutral and balanced.

Sources and References


 * I think it might be worthwhile to find a couple of sources that are more current. Like a lot of digital preservation, I feel like database preservation would be something that people are constantly trying to refine and improve. It is important to have an article that reflects these developments.
 * I do think that the sources you have are reliable and definitely have good information - I'm just wondering if there has been any newer research on this topic.
 * Also, Wikipedia is a little intense with the citations. I would go back and make sure you are not leaving large chunks of text uncited. It helps if you have a couple of different sources you can reference. I always find it a good sign if I see similar ideas/conclusions being drawn in different papers. This means that the information is going to be more reliable.
 * For example, the "RODA and the Database Preservation Toolkit" section only has one source. Is there another source you can reference as well?

Organization


 * The organization for the new content is fine, but I would recommend splitting up the "RODA and the Database Preservation Toolkit" into more manageable paragraphs. I think readers will have an easier time absorbing information if it is in smaller chunks.
 * I'm curious how you are integrating the new content with the old content. I'm guessing you're either integrating or replacing the "Database Preservation Toolkit" section with the new content. Is "CHRONOS" going to be its own section or is it going under "Preservation Formats?"
 * "If a database is open and static; open and dynamic; closed and static; or closed and dynamic will affect the methods used for preservation." - I would change the semicolons to commas
 * "RODA or the Repository of Authentic Digital Objects was a project..." - add commas after RODA and after Objects
 * "To achieve normalization of relational databases their data is converted..." - add comma after databases
 * "...was split into three “layers”:..." - I don't think layers needs quotation marks
 * "For the data and structure layers an element of the..." - add comma after layers
 * "...using DBMS-specific “connectors”. These “connectors”..." - I don't think you need quotation marks around connectors
 * "These steps, created by the RODA project to ingest and preserve relational databases in a normalized format represent the database..." - add comma after format

Overall Impressions


 * You met the required word count! I think you did a great job expanding on information for this topic. I don't think a lot of people realize the importance/complexity of preserving databases. You did a good job adding information that will help readers have a more comprehensive understanding of database preservation.
 * I would just recommend adding some more sources and making sure to break up large paragraphs into more manageable sizes.
 * Good job!