Small suggestions

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.