User:Lolabaylo/Disinformation attack/Plusoneplusone 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lolabaylo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lolabaylo/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead section is well-written and cited. I think I am the first one who peer reviewed this article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. The first sentence has provided a clear definition.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? In general, yes. A sentence about defense methods may be added to the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Most references are from the last three years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article discussed people who have been victims of disinformation attack. So yes, I think it addressed the underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral in general.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. All the information are facts and examples.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I can see that the author's intention is to be informative instead of persuasive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. The article is well cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. It could be better if the amount of sources can be added up to 20.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. The sources are from the last three years mostly.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well-written. I would suggest to add more examples and add a section about privacy related aspects (if there is any).
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content rarely has any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I can see a clear structure.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No. I know the topic is pretty abstract, so it's understandable that no images added so far. I'll suggest to try your best to search for relevant image (if there is any).
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

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? This article has ten sources from a wide spectrum of authors.
 * 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, It has a lead section, several body sections, a bibliography.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article has a complete structure.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article is on the right track as I see a lot of good qualities -- neutrality, relevant information, reliable academic sources etc. It is well organized and follows a coherent structure.
 * How can the content added be improved? There could be more sources to support the article. In terms of the structure, there can be a section talking about privacy considerations related to disinformation attack (if there is any). The lead section can also be improved to deliver a more effective summary of the information mentioned in the body paragraphs.