Small suggestions

Hey Adena,

Your page is looking really good. Specifically, you have done a really great job explaining the history of personal archives scholarship, as well as the controversy and differences of opinions, in your page.

However, I wondered if in your "Appraisal" section the following sentences might be putting too much of your own views into the "objective" and "neutral" style of Wiki writing. You write: "Current literature regarding appraisal of personal archives generally divides it into two camps: material that supports the research interests of users and material that fits the 'collecting policy' of the institution." Which I think is great and remains neutral. However, you follow it up with more subjective sentences: "Both of these directions are flawed in some way. By prioritizing use as a means of determing [spelling error] value, archival institutions will end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections." The second statement seems fine, but saying that both of these directions "are flawed" is a personal judgement, whether it is your own or the author's. Also, in your next sentence, you state: "Furthermore, we are not able to tell in the present what research will be conducted in the future or what archival material it will require." The use of the word "we" is what I think might be inadvisable. I suggest putting something along the lines of "archivists" or reword it to be less personal sounding.

Other than these small things, it is coming along very nicely.

- Jason

Thanks Jason, I'll take a look at the language in that section. Some of that un-neutral opinion is coming from readings I've done but I need to make that clearer with citations.

I edited it a bit - I'd appreciate if you could take a look and let me know what you think!

Hey Adena,

I looked over the changes you made. I am still not sure that the section reads neutral, or at least identifies who is making these statements, despite having a citation. I might try something like:

"Pollard says that there are weaknesses in both directions. She[or He? not sure of Pollard's sex] says, that by prioritizing use as a means of determining value, archival institutions will end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections."

Another way of stating it is to use less definite language. Such as:

"Some archivists have identified weaknesses in both directions. They suggest that by prioritizing use as a means of determining value, archival institutions may end up with unbalanced, narrow, and possibly biased collections."

I prefer the second example, but of course you can do whatever seems best to you.

I am not criticizing your writing at all. I am merely suggesting that for this style of writing (Wiki), identifying the author of a thought or viewpoint is crucial, which you do by providing a citation, but writing from an objective-sounding viewpoint is also key in order to not come off as biased. I think you do this well throughout the rest of the page.

Your page is really looking great though. I like the new introduction section.

- Jason

Edited again - thoughts? I'm definitely more comfortable in either a paper-writing tone or a casual blog writing tone. (or a creative writing tone). I think I'm too opinionated for the wiki style! (although at least I don't have vendetta against 'comprised of' http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/05/why-wikipedias-grammar-vigilante-is-wrong)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I really like your edits. I think it reads much more clear whose opinion is being expressed. Great job!

Also, thanks for the link! Wow, what an odd hobby that guy has.