User:Mgordier/Perpetual access/Gp1791 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mgordier


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mgordier/Perpetual access


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Perpetual access

Lead
Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? : The first sentence of the Lead has been updated. It is an improvement over the first sentence of the original article, but still leaves the reader slightly confused. Maybe mention that this is an issue in the library field specifically rather than just "institutions."

Content
Is the content added relevant to the topic? : Yes!

Is the content added up-to-date? : Yes, the sources used date from within the last 10-15 years.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The contributions are far below the 800 word minimum for our assignment, so there is a lot more content that could be added. As a reader, I would want to know more about the history of perpetual access agreements (when they first started happening and how they have evolved over time). Some short case study examples of perpetual access disputes between libraries/publishers or how libraries navigate the ongoing digital preservation issues of perpetual access might also be a good way to boost reader comprehension of the topic.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? : No

Tone and Balance
Is the content added neutral?: For the most part.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? : I'm not sure if this is a big thing or not, but since perpetual access is an issue with clear dichotomous parties involved (libraries and publishers), a truly balanced article would discuss the perspectives of both sides. The added content gives off the feeling of being biased towards the libraries side (which is not surprising considering the program we're in). Perhaps delving into more of the history of these perpetual access disputes might bring in more of the publisher's arguments/perspective.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? : Library perspective, see above.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? : Perhaps slightly in favor of the libraries side of the argument - see above.

Sources and References
Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? : Good job adding a citation for every point!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) : Yes, from what I can tell.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? : A majority of the sources are from one journal, The Serials Librarian. Maybe branch out to some other publications. If you're able to find articles on perpetual access from publisher-focused academic journals, those would be very interesting contributions!

Are the sources current?: Yes, all within the last 10-15 years. Though perhaps trends in perpetual access agreements have changed significantly since 10-15 years ago?

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Not able to determine the diversity of the source authors.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) : Good job with finding peer-reviewed journal articles.

Check a few links. Do they work? : All links working. The dates need to be fixed in the Wikipedia citations for sources 6, 7, and 9. Source 8 requires login info to access (an ALA account I think?)

Organization
Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? : Overall yes. Some sentences could use some clarification to make their points more understandable.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? : Some grammatical errors throughout.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? : Added content has no section headings. Needs a lot of expansion.

Overall impressions
Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? : Yes, adds needed content to the original article, but the added content needs to be greatly expanded.

What are the strengths of the content added? : Improves the Lead sentence and adds some overall clarity to the original article with good examples.

How can the content added be improved? : Expand everything!