Talk:WikiJournal Preprints/OpenSpeaks: Open Toolkit for Multimedia Documentation of Indigenous Languages
This article is an unpublished pre-print undergoing public peer review organised by the WikiJournal of Humanities.
You can follow its progress through the peer review process at this tracking page.First submitted:
Article text
QID: Q106806074
Suggested (provisional) preprint citation format:
Subhashish Panigrahi. "OpenSpeaks: Open Toolkit for Multimedia Documentation of Indigenous Languages". WikiJournal Preprints. Wikidata Q106806074.
License: 
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited.
Eystein Thanisch 
contact
Sim Tze Wei
T. B. Dinesh
Article information
This is the pre-publication public peer review for the article OpenSpeaks: Open Toolkit for Multimedia Documentation of Indigenous Languages
Peer review 1
edit
Review by Sim Tze Wei 
, Hokkien Language Association of Penang, Malaysia
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
I noticed part of the content (chapter 1: copyright part) is not within my expertise. I'd suggest you ask someone else to cover that part. The certificate of the website has expired so I can't visit the website. However, the document is pretty generic and I have done the review without visiting the website. I have listed down the parts (sentences/paragraphs) that I think need improvement below:
1. Video/image not showing human faces or exposing any personal information (name, address, location and other personal data; applicable to audio exposing personal information)
Comment: I'd suggest to paraphrase >>> Video/image without any personally identifiable information (i.e. human faces, any personal information such as name, address, location and other personal data; applicable to audio exposing personal information)
2. If the recording is vital to your production, then you have to ensure all personal information is redacted.
Comment: I'd suggest to paraphrase >>> If the recording is vital to your production, then you have to ensure all personally identifiable information is redacted from the recording.
3. Earphones that come with the phones generally work both for phones and computers as compared to the default microphone provided along with .
Comment: Missing word at the end.
4. Frankly speaking, the video is less important here as compared to the audio. With low quality video, viewers would still be able to manage if the audio is loud and clear. So if you are keen on investing, invest on a good quality microphone that can either be connected with the camera or can be used as a secondary recorder. But do not trust your camera’s default microphone. They can literally jeopardize your hard work. As far as the camera goes, you can literally use any camera that allows you to record in a decent quality i.e. above 720p (1280×720 px)—from your phone to a point and shoot camera to a dSLR.
Comment: Please remove ""Frankly speaking"", ""literally"" and paraphrase it to make it sound more formal. I'd suggest record at Full HD 1920x1080 px at the least. Full HD is pretty standard nowadays. Higher quality videos would allow people to observe mouth movements and other types of subtle body movements too. These body movements form part of human communication.
5. If you're recording at home, try to create a minimal setup You need a microphone to be able to record the audio.
Comment: Missing full stop after the first sentence.
6. We strongly recommend the comprehensive guides that BBC has created (short version here
Comment: Link missing in ""here"".
7. You can only do that by investing in a small tripod (they are generally really cheap and do the job) that can hold your phone. For this particular project, tripods will be the best.
Comment: Many modern phone cameras and video cameras come with stabilising software. You can turn that feature on.
Thank you much for your valuable inputs. I will work on the draft and reflect the corrections soon. I have not found an editor for the Chapter 1 but will hopefully be able to reach out to one. I am quite new in the WHJ community and would love if you and other friends have any recommendations to reach out to any potential editor. --Psubhashish (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Peer review 2
edit
Review by T B Dinesh , Janastu
These assessment comments were submitted on , and refer to this previous version of the article
1. The first chapter. It's hard to know what they understand when consent is given ideas such as rights, consent, copyright, license, ownership of rights et al. Consent does not mean they will not be abused either personally by the patriarchs or by using content in a manner they will not be surprised and will have to claim ignorance of having approved for such use. "Written consent" would then be more meaningless in these contexts of low-literacy of the language of written text. Ideally, every use of material needs to be deliberated by the parties and for that we may have to work on how technology can help bring this possibility in the future but be aware and prepare for such negotiations in content management processes and sub-clausing this with clients (that in spite of apparent consent there may have a roll back or a need to explain the implication for every use).
2. Recording contexts can have significant others who can help ease or make a related story or conversations and memory jogs.
3. annotations need to have authorship, consent for reuse too. annotations also need to be supported via personal and public archives both with attribution and privacy safeguards.4. Accessibility, esp in your case, must recognise that even people with eyes and ears cannot access the outcome of the recordings/edited-work. It might be good to consider what processes are significant to ensure that the outcome is made accessible for the communities.
- Thanks much to Dinesh. I will incorporate the comments very soon into the article post October 15 as I have been crunched with three tight deadlines. --Psubhashish (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Psubhashish, were you able to improve your manuscript based on reviewer 1 and 2's comments? I noticed that you did make edits to the manuscript since October 2021 but I wasn't sure if you finished with the revision but forgot to comment on your revisions in the talk page. Thanks. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @User:OhanaUnited I did try to improve some portions of the article but could not wrap up. I did not have the bandwidth all these months. As this year ends with holidays and more personal time offs, I am planning to work on this in the next couple of weeks and hand over for final edits. Sorry for the radio silence and long delay. --Psubhashish (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @User:OhanaUnited I did try to improve some portions of the article but could not wrap up. I did not have the bandwidth all these months. As this year ends with holidays and more personal time offs, I am planning to work on this in the next couple of weeks and hand over for final edits. Sorry for the radio silence and long delay. --Psubhashish (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)