2013 Guidelines

Not sure how to complete a review?  Not sure what to review?  I’ll post some examples here and generate some lists of projects and tools.  Please feel free to add to the lists, especially if there’s a tool you don’t use but would like someone to review for you.

Your reviews should be around 500-1000 words long, although you may go longer.

Peer reviews of these reviews should focus on constructive critique.  What does the review explain well?  Where could it be improved, and how?

Tool:  See the list below for some examples.  Pick your tool early if you can so that nobody else takes it first.  You may choose to review a tool you’ve not used, or one which you know well.

Sample Tool Review format

Tools list:  CommentPress, DropBox, Evince, Flickr, Google Books, Google Earth, Google Scholar, reCAPTCHA, Scribd, Tumblr, Twitter, Wikipedia, WordPress, Zotero

Project:  You may review a complete project or one in progress.  You can find information about some projects in the early stages at DHCommons.org.  Looking at the websites of digital humanities centers and institutes may also help you.  A search for “Digital Humanities” and some specific author or text might be worth a shot.

Sample Project Review format

Theory:  Attending one of the formal presentations at the Alabama DHC qualifies, as does listening to a webinar or other online conference.  You can find a list of events and CFPs at http://hastac.org/events.

Theory responses should clearly identify the event or conference you are responding to.  If you are responding to something available online, provide a link.  Beyond that, you’re writing a brief essay response (no more than 1-2 pages equivalent) to the event after providing a summary of the talk itself.  Don’t try to hit all the highlights–a one paragraph summary will suffice.

Leave a Reply