User talk:Jessica.jeffers84/sandbox

Jessica's Peer Review
I just wanted to get this started, so that I can come back to it. You've done a great job with researching sources towards critical analysis of both the structure and content of the article. I specially appreciate your contributions to to the talk page first, as they lay out the steps in your analysis. This makes it clearer and easier for future edits. I also feel that this at least potentially mitigates any sort of misinterpretation of your edits.

What can I say that Paige already hasn't Jessica, you have done a great job with your contributions, specially your sources. I think (and I am just being extra critical as it is difficult to find room for improvement here) a few things that you might want to add: a sentence or two in the leading paragraph that is a quick and dirty summary of the current critiques. One of the training modules suggests that we should be able to have a comprehensive idea of the concept from the leading summary section alone and I think that criticism of orginal order is important to acknowledge in that section. Something like, "Despite, its positive elements that contribute to best practices in the archival field, it is not without its criticism. Archival scholars tend to approach original order as a discursive principle rather than a strict archival method". Something along those lines perhaps? also maybe link the first instance of the word "record" to the wikipedia article Archive just for the sake of research. I also think that critiques should go after your section on original order in Digital Archives, I think it flows better that way. Again, these are just optional suggestions, I really think you have done a great job and I appreciate our discussion of the process as well as your example of contributions to the talk section of the page.Testierellano (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Jessica's Peer Review
Hi Jessica, I'm doing your peer review on your original order article. I noticed you haven't posted much yet on the article, so I'll be doing my review based on your ideas from the talk page. I do like that you posted your ideas on the talk page, because it helps others to see your plans for the article. I think its crucial to expand on the critiques of original order since there are many ideas about original order and to what extent it should be followed. However, I can see that the critiques section is already very fleshed out compared to the rest of the article. If you choose to continue expanding the critiques section, I would suggest dividing it into more sections to see what exactly the critiques are instead of one massive wall of text. I would ultimately also suggest trying to expand the principles and history sections as well since they are fairly small compared to the critiques section. People who visit the page should get an idea of what original order is instead of just a blurb and then a massive amount of criticism since it might imply that original order is not as important as it is in the archival field.

Your sources are excellent! Digitization and original order is an important one to look at as well. Original order has a harder time existing in a digital context. I think going with subheads would be a great idea!

I would agree that the order should be principles first then history then critiques. I think it is important to include what it is not, but it should not be very long. The same goes for provenance. I see there is already a mention of provenance in the introduction, so it would be good to expand on it a little bit in the principles section. I would also suggest adding in the role original order plays in fonds and respect des fonds as well. Again, does not have to be a long section.Paigewatson143 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Paige. I've ultimately decided to just clean up the critiques section, and gave the digital curation aspect its own section. I would like to find more on the history if I can because I agree that should be more prominent, but thus far I've had trouble finding a lot of sources that do more than offer a simple description of the principle and mention that it originates from the Dutch manual. I'd also like to expand the section on "context" to explain what that means and why it's important to original order. Jessica.jeffers84 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)