User:99rebound/Local differential privacy/CelticsFan3 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

99rebound


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:99rebound/Local differential privacy
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Local differential privacy

Lead
I saw that you added another paragraph to the lead and I think you did a great job of giving a better overview of your topic. The first sentence you added, starting with "With the ever growing society", could be more objective as it seems to me that there is some sort of emotion put in. Also instead of saying LDP is an excellent privacy model, maybe say that it is widely recognized or something along those lines.

Content
The information added under Applications is impressive. I liked that you split it up into different categories and the content shows that you've grasped the main ideas from the research. The content seems to all be relevant to the topic. There are some instances in which the wording can seem biased or not neutral. Ex: "However, this comes at a subtle cost".

Impression
I really enjoyed reading your article and you made some great changes. I would suggest thinking of the placements of each source of content. Ex: Place history section before Applications. Another suggestion is just to double check the tone and syntax of your article. Ex: Instead of "In the study sponsored by the Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and computational Intelligence", say "In an Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence study, ...". You did an excellent job of citing your sources and they're all current! Keep up the good work!