User:Serialsgirl/Digitization/Mgordier 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, only sections have been edited.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I am able to ascertain.

'''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? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes, almost all of them are from the past 10 years.

'''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''' Was not able to determine this information.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? No, the sources are all suitable.

'''Check a few links. Do they work?''' All the sources I checked worked. Although, source 10 and 19 did require a log in, so that may affect some accessibility.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and easy to read overall. Although, while the sentence “Digitizing something is not the same as digital preservation” does express the information in the section well and makes that change of wording more neutral than the article’s version, perhaps it could be worded a little differently to help with flow of information in the following information or expanded. I hope that makes sense and is helpful, as I’m not quite sure how to explain it any better!

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I was able to find.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? As a whole, the content added helped improve the article by expanding existing information to make it more clear and richer in content.

What are the strengths of the content added? The contribution of minor changes that really aid the article in being more detailed and understandable.

How can the content added be improved? Other than some minor wording changes mentioned, there is not much that could be improved. The draft is well done!