User:Jameswang323/Identity replacement technology/HanMiKC Peer Review

General info

 * I will be reviewing Jameswang323's article on Identity Replacement Technology

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Since this is a new article and not editing an existing one, yes the lead contains all new information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the existing sentence of the lead is concise and gives a simple, understandable definition of the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it discusses all the topics that are present in the sections of the article. It doesn't specify how the sections are split, per say, but I think it accomplishes its goal without needing to.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There was a mention of an anti-mask governing law at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section, and that wasn't explored further in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
It accomplishes it's job very well. There is a punctuation error on the last sentence of the first paragraph, as it has a "/" instead of a period. Also, I'm unsure if the mention of the anti-mask governing law should be present in the lead, as it doesn't really get expanded upon in any of the other sections. Overall, it had a neutral tone and I could see no bias towards one party in the language thus far.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all the content is relevant. I can tell by reading, but it was also nice how the content was connected to the topic in the lead section well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I see a few articles from the early 2000s, which may be a little out-of-date, but nonetheless it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the article writing. Also, a majority of the articles do seem up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content that doesn't belong in my opinion, but I would like to know more about how the anti-mask governing law and how that fits in to any of the subtopics at hand, since it was mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does, as it is an article that did not exist on Wikipedia before this. The article didn't mention how the topics were related to historically underrepresented populations, but I don't think it was supposed to.

Content evaluation
I was able to understand the language in the overall content very well. In the last section of the entire article, I think there is a typo: "this rype of image privacy protection" instead of "this type". For the last section of the "Face authentication and biometric identification section", there is a claim about mass crimes related to the subtopic can cause "serious damage to the international landscape". I think this might be a bit too general and hard to picture for people unaware about foreign affairs, so perhaps adding a specific example to demonstrate this would make the claim more clear. Also, I'm unsure if "serious" is not neutral enough, although I would air on the side that it is fine. Up to you if you would like to keep it or not.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is neutral. It seems like they are just summarizing the sources they got the information from, which is how it's supposed to be.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No specific claims, other than the one mentioned in the content evaluation section.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I see none that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Both how the technology mentioned can be positive and negative are written about, as well as explaining any unusual terms.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance is good, and there is no strong stance taken for or against any particular side.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, but source 11 seems like a law journal and I'm unsure if we are allowed to use law journals for citations. That might just be purely for the annotated bibliography and not our article, though.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are all research-based.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some from the early 2000s, but overall current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It is hard to tell if the authors are diverse, since just their names are present. The titles of the articles don't help me gage either, but I don't feel like this has affected the quality of the article in any way.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * There are no links to be clicked, but searching up the articles online give me accessible articles in-return, so the sources work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well-written and clear, but I think it could be improved if within each section it was split into sub-sections, like one for 3D sensor cameras and one for fingerprinting, just for the sole purpose of being more clear in how the information is split up and when it transitions to a new topic within the section.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, they have been mentioned throughout the other questions in this peer review. There is also this sentence: "there are global political, ethical, and economical threats spoofer that goes beyond a country's borders.", and I don't think that the word "spoofer" makes the sentence make sense. Is this where the word is supposed to go? This is in the "Face authentication and biometric identification" section.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, although I think it could be broken down into further sections as mentioned previously.

Organization evaluation
Overall good, minor grammar/punctuation errors that have been mentioned throughout this peer review. A recommendation would be to split content in sections further into sub sections, at your discretion.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
If you feel that images would enhance the article and/or make it more easy for the reader to understand, then I suggest adding them. Maybe a picture of fingerprinting/how it works or one of the other techs you mentioned would be good as an image. Overall, an image isn't necessary, but would add to the article in my opinion.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * It is an appropriate amount for the size of the article, all the sources seem relevant to the topic.
 * 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?
 * Yes, but it could benefit with more sub-sections within the already-split sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, it does, although I'm unsure if I just didn't catch it but maybe "spoofing" would be another good term to link your article to.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, it feels like a complete article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content was written in an understandable matter for the most part, and the sections themselves were split well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Clarity could be improved by splitting the sections further within each one, also perhaps adding an image would improve the article as well.