User:99rebound/Local differential privacy/LowIQPotato 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)

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:

This lead is rather strong as it provides an abundance of exposition to what the article is going to talk about and why. In doing this I'm given a reason to continue rather than feeling like I have to force myself to. As a result, I have a clear idea of the information that is to follow.

Content:

The content appears to be relevant to the overarching topic, which is good. The amount of content is amazing, I would say this looks complete (albeit I could be wrong). One thing I will noticed though is the lack of addressing the equity gap. However, this makes perfect sense given the technical nature of the information being shared. I do feel this could still be addressed in some ways, such as how this technology has been used to harm marginalized communities, etc.

Tone and Balance:

As a result of the technical nature, this article is very neutral. IT has the purpose of sharing information, and does that effectively. Overall, the wording has no intent to persuade, albeit there were some charged words, for example calling spam calls a nuisance (which they are, but nuisance has some strong negative connotations that seem directed).

Sources and References:

Well, there are a lot of sources, and understanding the process of how they were accumulated, they seem solid.

Organization:

The organization is very modular, so it's easy to read one section and get the idea of that specific section. The knowledge is very technical, so while it is readable, that might not mean understandable. As it stands, this article is probably more for someone with the background knowledge to read the material rather than a common reader. I'm sure with some time they could come to understand what's going on, but it isn't exactly simple. Still, I cannot help but praise how much and how well the article is organized. As far as I could tell, there are no grammatical issues.

Images and Media:

The images definitely add to the understanding as they supplement the reading. The captions help give a good reasoning for why they exist in the article. In terms of aesthetic, the placement is fine.

For New Articles Only:

The new article will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knowing the work the lab has to do, the sources will be extensive and exhaustive in the knowledge they provide. The article links to very few articles, so it may be harder to discover.

Overall Impressions:

So far, this article has blown me away with how succinct and bubbling with knowledge it is. There's so much to learn from just a single section, and that's what makes your article so strong. I will say that even at a high level, some of the technical jargon was difficult to read, so maybe a bit more explanation would work wonders, but holistically the article is superb!