DHQ Article Review Form Please complete this form and return it by email to submissions@digitalhumanities.org. *********************** 1. Comments for the editors (these will not be shown to the author): What are the chief strengths of this paper? What are the chief weaknesses of this paper? Please choose one of the following: __ This paper is acceptable as it stands without changes __ This paper is acceptable as it stands with minor changes (does not need to be resubmitted for review) __ This paper has potential but needs significant changes (needs to be returned for revision and resubmitted for review) __ This paper is not appropriate for publication and should be rejected. If you chose the last option above, please check any of the following that apply: __ The paper is of insufficient quality or has unsalvageable flaws __ The paper does not fall within the domain of the journal __ The paper does not represent original work (has been published elsewhere, or reproduces the work of others) __ This paper is not ready for submission (unfinished, incomplete, rough) Please rate the overall quality of the paper as an intellectual contribution (leaving aside issues of mechanics): __ This paper is among the very best work being done in this field __ This paper is highly competent work __ This paper is competent but unremarkable __ This paper is flawed but interesting __ This paper is weak, insignificant, or substantially flawed __ Other, please explain: Please rate the paper's breadth of relevance: __ This paper is of broad relevance to the entire field of digital humanities and to interested outsiders __ This paper is of broad relevance to the entire field of digital humanities __ This paper is of relevance to a significant subset of the field of digital humanities __ This paper is of relevance to one particular community within digital humanities __ This paper is highly specialized and of relevance to a handful of researchers. Does this paper need copyediting or assistance with the use of English as a foreign language? 2. Comments to be provided to the author Please provide suggestions for improving the argument of the paper. Is the argument clearly stated and easy to follow? Are there weaknesses in the argumentation that could be fixed? Are the introduction and conclusion interesting, and if not, how could they be improved? Please provide suggestions for improving the research quality of the paper. Does the paper provide sufficient context for the research being presented? Does it cite appropriate prior work? Are there important references of which the author is unaware, that might affect the conclusions being presented? Has the author identified the useful boundaries of the research problem, or is it artificially limited? Are there further implications the author should explore? Please provide suggestions for improving the address of the paper. Does it address its audience appropriately? Does it provide enough background for a non-specialist to appreciate the significance and relevance of the research, and if not, can you suggest ways of fixing this? Does it use avoidable jargon? Please provide suggestions for improving the overall organization and mechanics of the paper. Is it clearly written? Could it be improved by changing the order in which it presents evidence, arguments, etc.?