Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

Serialsgirl

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Serialsgirl/Digitization

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

Digitization

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Lead section has not been updated.

Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Very much so! The Challenges and Solutions sections are nice additions. As is the section on Standards, which could even be expanded.

Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, the sources the added content is based on are from the past 10-15 years.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I like the added section on Standards and think it could be expanded. I also agree with your note in the Digitization versus Digital Preservation section. Perhaps this section could also use some subheadings that would better focus the different points. The fourth paragraph in the section (the one before your note) seems like it might fit more in the Challenges section as it is about issues faced by libraries/archives in their digitization processes.

It would be interesting to see the Implications section from the original article expanded on, perhaps talking about the consequences (positive and negative) of modern digitizing practices, growing expectations that everything is/will be digitized, etc.

Rights issues surrounding digitized material would also be an interesting topic to go into more.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: No

Is the content added neutral?: Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: There are some - see imperative statements below.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Not that I can tell.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: There are some imperative statements in the Solutions section that try to persuade the reader: "Use digital collections as a selling point," "Bring donors in for tours," "show them examples."

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Good job with making sure all your added content has source citations!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.): Yes, from what I can tell.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Good job finding sources from a variety of journals rather than from just one or two.

Are the sources current?: Yes, from within the last 10-15 years.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Cannot determine diversity of source authors.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.): The sources taken from the original article include blog posts and articles from media outlets. The sources from the new content are nicely researched from peer-reviewed journals.

Check a few links. Do they work?: Links working. Source #30 needs the date formatting fixed.

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, nicely written!

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: Looks good (though you might want to go back through those sections of the original article that you're keeping and proofread those for grammar...)

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

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Yes, your contributions are useful to the original article.

What are the strengths of the content added?: The added content helps round out the original article through these discussions of challenges and solutions from the library/archive perspective.

How can the content added be improved?: Some of it, such as the Standards section, could be expanded. There are other topics, brought up above, that could merit their own sections. Other topics brought up in the original article, the Implications section for example, would be interesting avenues to pursue for expansion/re-writes.