User talk:Penguinblueberry

This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/PLP_-_Berkeley_Interdisciplinary_Research_Group_on_Privacy_-_Coleman_Lab_(Spring_21) .

Hello![edit]

Hope you're keeping well. Love the name! Denmum (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!![edit]

Hope you are doing well! Hotpink789! (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Penguinblueberry, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Hi Penguinblueberry, nice to meet you. Hope you're doing well and that your semester is off to a great start. Luckyclover44 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Week 7[edit]

Just left some comments for peer review. Great work! CelticsFan3 (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Penguinblueberry

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): DeepFace

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

There are no current edits to the lead. I do think that the existing lead already does a great job of summarizing the topic. However, you could add a sentence or two on its current usage.

Content[edit]

I think that the controversial aspect to this topic is really promising, so I like that you added that as one of your main points. As with other Wikipedia articles, controversy usually goes at the end of article, which you've already done!

Impression[edit]

I really liked the formatting and the flow of information that you decided to use. There's a great opportunity with this topic and I can't wait to see the final product.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Penguiblueberry

Link to draft you're reviewing[edit]

User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)[edit]

DeepFace Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead[edit]

I noticed you moved the lead from the current version of the article to the contents. Depending on what you have thought for the lead, I believe this could be a great way to increase the conciseness and flow of the article.

Content[edit]

The content you have added, Current Uses and Method are topics that fit the article well. However, there is not too much you have added for me to add feedback. But great start!

Organization[edit]

The article is organized in a way that seems organized and with great flow where the subtopics are aspects that all tie in to the overview and significance of DeepFace.

==Impressions==

Though there was not much added in this first draft review, the organization of the article by moving the old lead section into a subtopic allows for better flow and more informative introduction in my opinion.

Peer Review Week 7[edit]

Hi I have reviewed you first article draft and left some comments on your article draft! 99rebound

Peer Review Week 8[edit]

Lead

- Great intro! It explains the topic very clearly and in an understandable manner.

- I would clarify the following sentence: "DeepFace shows human-level performance." Because this is the first time readers will be reading this, they may be confused on what human-level performance entails, so I would include something along the lines of human-level performance with regard to accuracy.

Commercial Rollout

- include space after "Tel Aviv University."

- No comma needed after Yaniv Taigman in last sentence of first paragraph

- first sentence second paragraph: comma should go before citation

- extra spaces in last sentence of second paragraph before the word "notification" and "option"

- last paragraph first sentence: period should go before citation

Method

- make sure to include citation for where you got this information

Reactions

- period should go before quotes in last sentence

Controversy

- The first and last sentence seems redundant. I would delete the last sentence.

Tone and Balance

- neutral tone!

- I'm wondering if there were any positive reactions to DeepFace. That would be interesting to read since you talk about the criticisms

Organization

- Really easy to read! Flows smoothly

Images

- No images or media Hotpink789! (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Week 8[edit]

Lead[edit]

Lead hasn't been updated to reflect changes in the article (has been moved to a new section in body of article?)
- Maybe add a little bit on "reaction" and "current uses" (once the section is more developed)
Lead includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
Lead does not include information that's not in the article
Lead is concise and not overly detailed

Content[edit]

Content added is relevant to the topic
Content is up to date

Tone and Balance[edit]

Content is neutral
No biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views
Maybe elaborate more on ways it has been helpful (i.e. you mentioned identifying faces in photos) since there are lot of negatives
No persuasion

Sources and References[edit]

Sources appear to be reliable
Sources are kind of diverse (lots of news sources)

Organization[edit]

Article is well-organized and structured
No spelling or grammatical errors but there are places where spacing is off (under "Commercial Rollout" between "Tel Aviv University" and "Yaniv," between "the" and "option")

Overall[edit]

Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article on DeepFace. The additional information you added really made the article a lot more informative! Great work, and I can't wait to read more on its current uses.Luckyclover44 (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Week 9[edit]

Heyo! Just finished reviewing your work! Like the article so far! The comments are in the draft page. LowIQPotato (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Leadership Draft Review[edit]

Hi, I really enjoyed your article draft. I think that delving into these specific sections really provide a full description of Deep Face. One thing to think about is to try to remain a global perspective and not only U.S. based. Also, I would provide evidence for the statistics on accuracy in your main section of “This means that DeepFace is sometimes more successful than the human beings”. Don’t forget to add citations for all of your sections. Besides those minor things, this was a wonderful draft. I can’t wait to see what else you write!

Peer Review Week 10[edit]

Lead[edit]

Clear and concise, I like how even though it is a shorter lead, but it is just as effective.

Content[edit]

I really liked the subtopics you incorporated in your article, especially the current uses and methods. However, one suggestion could be to swap these two? Since in my opinion, knowing what it is used for comes before how it is used. But leaving it the way it is is great too!

Tone and Balance[edit]

The content seems to be unbiased and based purely on facts from academia.

Sources and References[edit]

Sources are up to date and have several sources to support the article.

Organization[edit]

Great organization. Besides the one suggestion of switching current uses and methods, the article was really smooth to read.

Images[edit]

N/A

Overall[edit]

Great article! I had a great time reading it and felt there wasn't much to critique on. Just maybe you could add some images such as facebook and their deepface contents? Some real life examples would make this article even more relatable. 99rebound (talk)

Peer Review Week 10[edit]

Lead: The lead is very informative and gives a great overview of the topic. One suggestion to add in the lead is maybe a summary of the overall consensus in terms of reactions to deepface.

Content: I love how much you were able to cover from commercial rollout to different methods of Deepface. In terms of the method section, were there any other sources that you used? If so, don't forget to cite them. Great job on the content portion as there really isn't much to critique.

Impression: Great work! Seems like you're almost finished and you've done a fantastic job. CelticsFan3 (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Leadership Review[edit]

Hi, I see you uploaded your article into the mainspace. Great job! One thing to be aware of is to make sure there are no errors with your citations. Sometimes, when transferring your draft over your sources can accumulate errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntheHeartofTexas (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Week 11[edit]

Lead: Great lead section! Clearly outlines what the article will be about.

Content: Really insightful! I’ve included specific notes below

- No comma needed after Yaniv Taigman in “origin” paragraph

- Extra space after the word “invade” in origin paragraph

- “Google’s technology, FaceNet is more successful than DeepFace using the same data sets.” This is a confusing sentence

- Make sure to cite your sources in the “method” section

- Need comma after “University of Washington” in “Reactions” section

Tone and Balance: Neutral tone. No detection of any bias.

Sources: Sources appear to be up to date and reflect the general literature available on the topic. The links are in working order.

Organization: Article runs smoothly.

Image and Media: No images or media used.

Overall: Good job! The article gives a great overview of DeepFace and is well-written and well-organized. Hotpink789! (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Week 11[edit]

Lead[edit]

Lead has been updated to reflect changes in article. It is concise and informative.

Content[edit]

The content added is relevant and up to date

Tone and Balance[edit]

The tone is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References[edit]

The sources are diverse and recent. The links that I checked worked. However, there are a ton of "cite errors" under references?

Organization[edit]

The article outline is well-structured. Here are just some super minor mistakes that I saw:
Maybe add "came to Facebook when Facebook acquired Face.com" right after the first mention of Yainiv Taigman
There's an extra period after "DeepFace's use and software"
There are extra spaces in the last sentence of the second paragraph on the "origin" section
There are extra spaces in the third and fourth sentences under the section "current uses"
There is an extra space between "angles" and "of" in the first paragraph under "method" and also extra spaces between "3-D model of a face"
commas should be outside of quotes for the word "creepy" in the first sentence under "media reaction"
Asian should be capitalized under "racism in facial identification technology"

Overall[edit]

Great job! I really like how multidimensional your article is and how it touches on so many different aspects of DeepFace and the different reactions it has garnered. Luckyclover44 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]