User:Hiiisparks/Smudge attack/Lolabaylo Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info
I am reviewing Hiiisparks' draft for the Wikipedia article, "Smudge attack."

Lead
The Lead has been updated to elaborate on the ease in which smudge attacks can occur and how they may be carried out. The Lead's introductory sentence is clear and concise, providing a succinct definition of a smudge attack. The Lead includes a brief description of smudge attack methods, but does not mention other section content listed in the article draft such as the "Countermeasure" section. The Lead is concise and does not include information that is not present in the rest of the article.

Content
The added content is relevant: it details the history and methods of smudge attacks, provides extensive information on the types of perpetrators that execute these attacks, and provides an overview of defense measures and the future of smudge attacks. The content is up to date (most of the supporting sources were published in the 2010s, and the content discusses present-day technology) and does not have any gaps. However, there are some sections that are more underdeveloped than others (for example, in the "Countermeasures" section, the "Biometrics" subsection has a paragraph of information, while the other countermeasures have a sentence or two of explanation). I do not think that this article addresses one of the WIkipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The added content is neutral and does not use any subjective statements. There are no claims that are biased toward a particular position; almost all statements are supported by an objective scientific study (e.g. evidence drawn from a University of Pennsylvania researcher team and a 2014 Pew Internet study). There do not seem to be overrepresented viewpoints, and the content is not persuasive. Overall, the article's tone is very neutral and factual.

Sources and References
Not all new content is backed up by reliable sources. Specifically, there are no proper citations in the "Types of Attackers" and "Future" section. The listed sources do seem thorough and current - the majority were published in the 2010s and come from journals specializing in mobile device security. The sources are produced by a diverse group of authors (for example, one article is written by a group of researchers at a Korean university; another article is authored by a researcher from a university in Algeria). The links work.

Organization
The content is clear and well-written. The only noticeable grammatical error is in the "Interpreting the Fingerprints" subsection: the sentence does not have an ending and it seems like there is missing information. The content is well organized, starting first with the history of smudge attacks, discussing methods and countermeasures, and concluding with a section about the future. Organizing the content in chronological order makes this article logical and easy to follow.

Images and Media
This article does not include images or media.

Overall impressions
The content has added extensive information on the history, methods, and countermeasures of smudge attacks. In doing so, the overall quality of the article has improved and the article seems more complete. In particular, I think this new content is an excellent addition to the article because each section - like "Methods" and "Types of attackers" - has a comprehensive list and respective descriptions. The content could be improved if certain sections (such as "Countermeasures") was expanded upon. Some points only have one sentence descriptions, which could be further developed.