User:Serialsgirl/Digitization/Madisonroberts97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Serialsgirl


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


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

Lead
It doesn't look like the lead has been updated at all. There are several unattributed claims and the information there does not reflect what has been added to the body of the article. The unedited lead is very concise, but there does need to be information added and there needs to be an introduction to each of the main sections of the article.

Content
The content added is very relevant to the article. I really appreciate the attention to detail when separating digitization from digital preservation. It seems like these would be easy terms to get confused especially from someone outside of the information profession. I also really like the challenges and solutions section. I wonder if you could add subheadings under "challenges" for each specific challenge you address to make it easier for the reader. It would be easier to go more in-depth without getting the paragraphs confused if you did this.

The content is up to date and there is nothing out of place.

I don't think this article really addressed any equity gaps. A good way to address this would be to add examples of different institutions and organizations that are from underrepresented groups. You could even highlight some unconventional solutions that lesser-known organizations have come up with.

Tone and Balance
The content here is all neutral and it does not lean toward one opinion or another. I wouldn't say that the distinction between digitization and digital preservation is overrepresented, but it takes up a lot of space in the article. I definitely don't think you should pair it down, but you should bulk up the other sections instead. It's great to know what digitization is not, but make sure you spend even more time and space describing what it is, what organizations and efforts are involved in it, key players, etc.

Sources and References
You have a GREAT selection of sources here. I'm very impressed with how many you were able to add in. It seems like you did an awesome job of finding multiple sources that back up each one of your claim. This article is clearly very well-researched. It seems to me like the sources are current and accurately reflected within the article. If there's anything to work on here, it would be added more authors that represent minority voices within the field. You could even include a section on minority opinions.

Organization
The article is already pretty well organized and I can see your notes to yourself here debating about where to put certain paragraphs. The only note I have about organization is what I said above about adding subheadings under "challenges" so readers can easily skim to the specific challenge they want to learn more about.

The content is well-written and does not have grammatical and spelling errors.

Images and Media
There have not been any images and media added to this draft yet, but I do see some in the original article. Some of the images look pretty old. You could probably update them to reflect your changes and changes within the field. You could also add images to the sections you're updating. I think that will really tie the article together.

Overall Impressions
The article is definitely on its way to being more complete. There are several other sections that also need to be updated, but I can see that you're working on it. You've done a great job with distinguishing between digitization and digital preservation and an even better job citing your claims. I can wait to see what happens when you update the other section and add in some minority opinions on digitization!