User:Jcham04/Deepfake/Jcham04 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am not reviewing someone's work because I am reviewing a general article which is the product of multiple people's work.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * I am not reviewing someone's Sandbox Draft but rather just the article as it is currently present on Wikipedia.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Deepfake

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does have an introductory sentence, but the language used to define what a a deepfake is is very technical and could be confusing to the average reader.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does not give a proper overview of the article as it does not really enumerate the sections of the article and what they entail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is quite short and could give a clearer overview of the article by adding a few sentences that describe the different sections of the article's content.

Content

 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content in the article is not quite up to date as it lacks examples of deepfakes from the past few years. There's very few mentions of deepfakes in 2022. The addition of examples of deepfakes could make the article's content more relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? The article's content is neutral for the most part. In the "Concerns" sections, there a few sentences that speak of deepfakes as negative and harmful, which is not a neutral perspective on deepfakes. However, since deepfakes are considered harmful by most governments and corporations, it would be difficult to remain neutral on the topic, especially in a section called "Concerns".
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The legal response section of the article does not give a larger overview of the legal response for deepfakes and instead only briefly detail the responses from the United States, China, Canada, and the United Kingdom, leaving the reader in the dark about how many other countries have responded to deepfakes and what they entail.

Sources and References

 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? The content featured often reflects what the cited sources say.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are a lot of sources used for the article's content, covering in great details many examples of deepfakes available for the general public.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are all fairly recent, a lot of them being articles written in 2019 up to now, giving the reader an up-to-date read on what a deepfake is.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Most information avaialbe on deepfakes online are mainly from news articles, which is the majority of the sources used for the article's content. Thus, the best sources available to find content for the article are most likely news articles from reputable newspapers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The majority of the links featured in the sources sections are functional and lead to the article that was used as a reference.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written, but the language used is very technical and could be tricky to understand for the average person reading the article who does not know a lot about AI and its related domains. The article can be quite difficult to read for said reason.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into sections that reflect important points about the topic. I do find that the "In popular culture" section should have been placed earlier in the article, possibly in between the "Applications" and "Concerns" sections, rather than at the very end as it seemed off-balance to put after the "Responses" section.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are two videos of deepfakes present in the article, both of which are relevant to the section where they are found. There could however be more examples included as two is quite a small amount for this topic which could use the help of media to be more clear to the average reader to understand what a deepfake is.


 * Are images well-captioned? The video of Kim Jung-On featured is simply captioned "Kim Jong-Un" which gives no context behind the deepfake or what Kim Jong-Un is doing in the deepfake
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The videos are well-placed in the article as they provide an example for the paragraph right next to them.