User:Yeji Shim/Apple Media Tool/Ryan Phang Peer Review

General info
Yeji Shim
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apple_Media_Tool&action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):User:Yeji Shim/Apple Media Tool

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Yeji,

It seems like you already pushed the edits to the live Wikipedia article and did the edits within the live article rather than your sandbox. Right off the bat, the first thing I noticed is the formatting issues with the articles. It seems like you simply bolded sections rather than using the heading/subheading features, just to keep consistency with the rest of Wikipedia format, using these features will improve the look of the article edits.

Going through each of the sections you added, the first section, "The Apple Media Tool: Empowering Multimedia Creation" contradicts the history section of the article which was already written and is backed up by sources. The original article says, "The AMT system was developed by Patrick Soquet, a developer in Belgium working for Arborescence - a French company that was later acquired by Havas. From 1993 onwards it was marketed by Apple but all development was done by the independent team led by Soquet." yet you contradict this by saying, "Developed and sold by Apple, AMT aims to simplify the creation of multimedia presentations for CD-ROM distribution." If you have found a source that shows that the software was developed by Apple and not Soquet, listing it would help the verifiability of the article. Further you also have no sources or citation on any of the edits you made to the article. The rest of the section also simply rehashes already present work in the article, it seems like you simply just paraphrased different parts of the already existing article and put it together in new sections.

While the tone and writing of your edits were neutral and non-biased, this largely seems like the result of not actually doing any research or adding any new content to the Wikipedia, and instead simply reusing content already present. For example the, "competitors" section list no other competitors, nor an understanding of what truly set AMT apart from any of the competitors beyond what was simply already said. Maybe you could compare and contrast actual features of the different programs to add to the depth of the article. Simply put your edits added no substance to the article and frankly made it more difficult to read due to formatting issues. Unless new research is present I think you should revert the article change and add the edits to your sandbox.

best wishes ~