User talk:Rmcbroo1/sandbox

Rachael,

You did a great job with the content and language of your article; it is well-written, concise, and neutral, thus is a good beginning to a Wikipedia article. Archivists play such an integral role in certain institutions that they definitely deserve their own Wikipedia page despite the cross-over in some of their responsibilities with librarians and collections managers.

I really like how you divided up the duties of an archivist as its organization is easy for the reader to follow and provides a good overview of what the specific duties of an archivist are. Additionally, adding a “Professional organization” section was a good idea, as it provides the reader with a way to further explore the topic through good, professional sources. If you wanted to further develop the article, you could probably add a few other professional organizations that are not located in North America, such as the Archives and Records Association in the UK/Ireland or the Australian Society of Archivists. Also, you could expand your education section to include how archivists are trained in other countries or how their roles differ depending on the type of institution. Otherwise, as Angel stated, you only need to fix the styling of your article to be a Feature article, specifically the structure and citations, and add an image. Overall, I think that you did a very good job with your content. Mmarley3 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Archivist Article Review
Rachael, I think you did a great job at researching and writing a well fleshed-out article on a role that can be of definite importance within cultural institutions. This is one of those roles that could overlap greatly with collections managers, registrars, and curators, but since archivists work specifically with records, and are more common in archives than museums, there is definitely room for its own article. I would wager that there are some differences in this profession from one institution to the next, based on the age and origins of the documents being preserved, so perhaps future edits of this article could address this issue a little more.

In terms of Wikipedia standards, I would say your article as it is right now would be a Stub Class, although with formatting it could easily move up to Start Class. Your content is good and offers a nice starting point for future editors to expand upon, and I like that you broke down the Responsibilities/Duties section into subsections. Right now though, the articles lacks Wikipedia styling. For example, typically in Wikipedia articles, the Reference list is automatically generated based on in-text citation information entered as you write the article. The Table of Contents for every article is also automatically generated based on the Titles you place within the article. In this case ==Duties== would be one Title section.

Overall, I think you did a great job at providing the content for a future article, and with some Wikicode formatting this could make an awesome starting article on the subject. AngelKelley (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)