An interesting conundrum that Cameron Blevins points out is that while digital history projects move fast, their reviews certainly have not in the past. The reviews “took place in print journals”, inherently limiting the benefit of the projects for those who might not know about it until there is a review.[1] I do not necessarily agree with their frustrations about the ways in which reviews have been typically structured, as we need to know if a project is accessible and understandable, even if the reviewing historian can’t speak to the adequacy of information; but we also need the inverse of that. I don’t see a reason why there can’t be multiple versions of reviews for a single project; a review shouldn’t have to be a one-stop shop.
Looking between review periods (2016 and 2020) from the American Historical Review and the Atlascope Project (2023), I noticed that the reviews shortened from the older to more recent. I also noticed that in the 2016 Exchange, there was possibly an issue with terminology and evaluation. There is a squabble over whether the Digital Harlem project is “a ‘thematic research collection’” or “an ‘interactive scholarly work’”.[2] I think, in general, fields could benefit from streamlined terms, however in this case, as digital projects were just gaining enough traction to warrant reviews, it seems like it may have been a hindrance to fully understanding the work. This could have led to some people over or undervaluing the work – certainly not a good thing! However, initially I could neither over or under anything to do with the site, as it no longer supports use on Safari; an interesting choice.
In the 2020 American Historical Review, the evaluation requirements to narrow in on usability and transparency, as well as potential, rather than necessarily how well a historical interpretation was, if at all, made.[3] This reinforces my point earlier, that one of the main focuses in a review should be its usability, especially in a digital project which absolutely requires a baseline of accessibility.
One of my biggest issues was with the Marronnage in Saint-Domingue (Haiti) project. As of 2020, the site had “under[gone] major expansion” but was still “incomplete”, particularly in the English version.[4] Writing this four years later, the site still looks incomplete, or at worst very dated, and I could not even find an option for an English version. Luckily, I do have some proficiency in French, so I was able to traverse the site, but it seems that they have made the English version inaccessible. Either by way of removing it as an option or just making it very hidden. The reviewer provided a historical view of the project, mentioning that “it has displayed only advertisements for missing slaves”, in addition to the updates that it was now adding “a second type of document”.[5] I agree with the reviewer that it feels like too few document types, and it, along with the scholars which use it, would benefit from adding more than just two types over a period of ten years. Digital projects should be ongoing, particularly repository-types, as we are only ever adding to our current arsenal of primary source availability.
Overall, I felt these reviews were incredibly helpful in showing me how a digital review is done. When the time comes (and we know it will in this class), I feel that with these resources I’ll be able to write a thorough enough evaluation! Although, with the way in which reviews keep getting shorter, I’m not sure how much actual balanced review there can be in the service of brevity!
[1] Cameron Blevins, “The New Wave of Review,” Cameron Blevins, March 7, 2016, https://cblevins.github.io/posts/the-new-wave-of-review/.
[2] “Reviewing Digital History: Introduction,” American Historical Review 121, February 2016, 141.
[3] “Digital History Reviews,” American Historical Review 125, April 2020, 579.
[4] David Geggus, “Digital History Reviews: Marronnage in Saint-Domingue (Haiti),” American Historical Review 125, April 2020, 582.
[5] David Geggus, “Digital History Reviews: Marronnage in Saint-Domingue (Haiti),” 582.