User:Lolabaylo/sandbox

= Article Outline: Disinformation Attack (Revised) = Disinformation attacks are the intentional dissemination of false information, with an end goal of misleading, confusing, or manipulating an audience. Disinformation attacks may be executed by state or non-state actors to influence domestic or foreign populations. These attacks are commonly employed to reshape attitudes and beliefs, drive a particular agenda, or elicit certain actions out of a target audience.

Disinformation attacks can be employed through traditional media outlets, such as state-sponsored TV channels and radios. However, disinformation attacks have become increasingly widespread and potent with the advent of social media. Digital tools such as bots, algorithms, and AI technology are leveraged to spread and amplify disinformation and micro-target populations on online platforms like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

Disinformation attacks can pose threats to democracy in online spaces, the integrity of electoral processes such as the 2016 United States presidential election, and national security in general.

Defense measures include machine learning applications that can flag disinformation on platforms, fact-checking and algorithmic adjustment systems, and collaboration between private social media companies and governments in creating solutions and sharing key information. Educational programs are also being developed to teach people how to better discern between facts and disinformation online.

Traditional media outlets
Traditional media channels can be utilized to spread disinformation. For example, Russia Today is a state-funded news channel that is broadcasted internationally. It aims to boost Russia’s reputation abroad and also depict Western nations, such as the U.S., in a negative light. It notably covers negative aspects of the U.S. and presents conspiracy theories aimed to mislead and misinform its audience.

Social media
Perpetrators primarily utilize social media channels as a medium to spread disinformation. They leverage a variety of tools to carry out disinformation attacks, such as bots, algorithms, deep fake technology, and psychological principles.


 * Bots are automated agents that can produce and spread content on online social platforms. Many bots can engage in basic interactions with other bots and humans. In disinformation attack campaigns, they are leveraged to rapidly disseminate disinformation and breach digital social networks. Bots can produce the illusion that one piece of information is coming from a variety of different sources. In doing so, disinformation attack campaigns make their content seem believable through repeated and varied exposure. By flooding social media channels with repeated content, bots can also alter algorithms and shift online attention to disinformation content.
 * Algorithms are leveraged to amplify the spread of disinformation. Algorithms filter and tailor information for users and modify the content they consume. A study found that algorithms can be radicalization pipelines because they present content based on its user engagement levels. Users are drawn more to radical, shocking, and click-bait content. As a result, extremist, attention-grabbing posts can garner high levels of engagement through algorithms. Disinformation campaigns may leverage algorithms to amplify their extremist content and sow radicalization online.
 * A deep fake is digital content that has been manipulated. Deep fake technology can be harnessed to defame, blackmail, and impersonate. Due to its low costs and efficiency, deep fakes can be used to spread disinformation more quickly and in greater volume than humans can. Disinformation attack campaigns may leverage deep fake technology to generate disinformation concerning people, states, or narratives. Deep fake technology can be weaponized to mislead an audience and spread falsehoods.
 * Human psychology is also applied to make disinformation attacks more potent and viral. Psychological phenomena, such as stereotyping, confirmation bias, selective attention, and echo chambers, contributes to the virality and success of disinformation on digital platforms. Disinformation attacks are often considered a type of psychological warfare because of their use of psychological techniques to manipulate populations.

Domestic voter disinformation attacks
Domestic voter disinformation attacks are most often employed by autocrats aiming to cover up electoral corruption. Voter disinformation includes public statements that assert local electoral processes are legitimate and statements that discredit electoral monitors. Public-relations firms may also be hired to execute specialized disinformation campaigns, including media advertisements and behind-the-scenes lobbying. For example, state actors employed voter disinformation attacks to reelect Ilham Aliyev in Azerbaijan's 2013 presidential election. They restricted electoral monitoring, allowing only certain groups like ex-Soviet republic allies to observe the electoral process. Public-relations firms were also hired to push the narrative of an honest and democratic election.

Russian campaigns

 * A Russian operation known as The Internet Research Agency (IRA) spent thousands on social media ads to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential elections. These political ads leveraged user data and to micro-target and spread misleading information to certain populations, with an end goal of exacerbating polarization and eroding public trust in political institutions. The Computation Propaganda Project at Oxford University found that the IRA's ads specifically sought to sow mistrust towards the U.S. government among Mexican Americans and discourage voter turnout among African Americans.
 * Russia Today is a state-funded news channel that aims to boost Russia’s reputation abroad and depict Western nations in a negative light. It has served as a platform to disseminate propaganda and conspiracies concerning Western states such as the U.S.
 * During the Russia - Crimea conflict of 2014, Russia's combined traditional combat warfare with disinformation attacks in its offensive strategy. Disinformation attacks were leveraged to sow doubt and confusion among enemy populations and intimidate adversaries, erode public trust in Ukrainian institutions, and boost Russia’s reputation and legitimacy. This hybrid warfare allowed Russia to effectively exert physical and psychological dominance over target populations during the conflict.

Other notable campaigns
An app called “Dawn of Glad Tidings,” developed by Islamic State members, assists in the organization's efforts to rapidly disseminate disinformation in social media channels. When a user downloads the app, they are prompted to link it to their Twitter account and grant the app access to tweeting from their personal account. As a result, this app allows for automated Tweets to be sent out from real user accounts and helps create trends across Twitter that amplify disinformation produced by the Islamic State on an international scope.

Ethical concerns

 * There is growing concern that Russia could employ disinformation attacks to destabilize certain NATO members, such as the Baltic states. States with highly polarized political landscapes and low public trust in local media and government are particularly vulnerable to disinformation attacks. Russia may employ disinformation, propaganda, and intimidation to coerce such states into accepting Russian narratives and agenda.
 * Disinformation attacks can erode democracy in the digital space. With the help of algorithms and bots, disinformation and fake news can be amplified, users' content feeds can be tailored and limited, and echo chambers can easily develop. In this way, disinformation attacks can breed political polarization and alter public discourse.
 * During the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, Russian influence campaigns employed hacking techniques and disinformation attacks to confuse the public on key political issues and sow discord. Experts worry that disinformation attacks will increasingly be used to influence national elections and democratic processes.

Federal
The Trump Administration backed initiatives to evaluate blockchain technology as a potential defense mechanism against internet manipulation. The Blockchain is a decentralized, secure database that can store and protect transactional information. Blockchain technology could be applied to make data transport more secure in online spaces and the Internet of Things networks, making it difficult for actors to alter or censor content and carry out disinformation attacks.

"Operation Glowing Symphony" in 2016 was another federal initiative that sought to combat disinformation attacks. This operation attempted to dispel ISIS propaganda in social media channels. However, it was largely unsuccessful: ISIS actors continued to disseminate propaganda on other unmonitored online platforms.

Private
Private social media companies have engineered tools to identify and combat disinformation on their platforms. For example, Twitter uses machine learning applications to flag content that does not comply with its terms of services and identify extremist posts encouraging terrorism. Facebook and Google have developed a content hierarchy system where fact-checkers can identify and de-rank possible disinformation and adjust algorithms accordingly. Many companies are considering using procedural legal systems to regulate content on their platforms as well. Specifically, they are considering using appellate systems: posts may be taken down for violating terms of service and posing as a disinformation threat, but users can contest this action through a hierarchy of appellate bodies.

Collaborative measures
Cyber security experts claim that collaboration between public and private sectors is necessary to successfully combat disinformation attacks. Cooperative defense strategies include:


 * The creation of "disinformation detection consortiums" where stakeholders (i.e. private social media companies and governments) convene to discuss disinformation attacks and come up with mutual defense strategies.
 * Sharing critical information between private social media companies and the government, so that more effective defense strategies can be developed.
 * Coordination among governments to create a unified and effective response against transnational disinformation campaigns.

Education and awareness
In 2018, the European commissioner for digital economy and society gathered a group of experts to produce a report with recommendations for teaching digital literacy. Proposed digital literacy curricula familiarizes students with fact-checking websites such as Snopes and FackCheck.org. This curricula aims to equip students with critical thinking skills to discern between factual content and disinformation online.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: The lead does have a concise and clear introductory sentence. The lead briefly touched upon the article's major sections, although it does not mention information types, which is extensively written about in one section.

Article 2: The lead is concise and clear, but also well-developed. It first defines surveillance capitalism, presents its advantages and disadvantages in an objective tone, and named the key players involved in surveillance capitalism. The lead covers main points discusses in the article's sections.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: The article's content is relevant to the topic of information privacy: it covers information types that are vulnerable to privacy breaches and the authorities that regulate information privacy. The subsection, "Authorities," seems underdeveloped: there are only hyperlinks for privacy laws and privacy organizations by countries; no textual information and explanation is provided. Overall, the sections seem imbalanced: some have extensive information provided, while others only have a list of hyperlinks. The content mostly seems to be up to date: it references studies done in the 2010s and lists recently created information privacy laws. The article does not address historically underrepresented populations.

Article 2: The article's content is relevant: it discusses the background of surveillance capitalism and commentary from the theorist behind it. It also presents analysis of the theory in an unbiased, neutral tone and contains information about responses to the issue (e.g. organizations advocating for free speech and online privacy). It is up to date: all sources were published in the 2010s. The article seems comprehensive and does not seem to be missing key content.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: Overall, the article seems to have a neutral tone; for example, the subsection, "United States Safe Harbor Program and passenger name record issues" objectively presents the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles program and describes its policies. There are some aspects of the subject that are underrepresented. For example, the subsection, "Authorities," seems underdeveloped, while the subsection, "Information types," has extensive information.

Article 2: The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, even when presenting commentary from theorists and notable figures in the field of digital surveillance. In the Lead, the advantages and disadvantages of surveillance capitalism are listed. Overall, the article seems successful in conveying a theory without bias or persuasive motives.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: Some facts in the article do not seem to be backed up by sources. For example, the "Financial Information Type" subsection contains a paragraph of information, but has not citations, only hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles. Many sources seem to be reliable secondary sources: they come from academic journals and books. However, some sources are from news publications and websites that do not seem as reliable and unbiased (such as The Register). Sources seem relatively up to date: many were published in the 2010s, but some were published in the early 2000s. The links do work.

Article 2: All facts are backed up by reliable sources, most of which are academic articles or international presses. However, a few sources seem biased (one source, although distributed by a reputable international press, is an opinion piece). The sources are current: almost all are published in the 2010s. The links work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: The article is generally concise and easy to understand. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. I think the organization is not very intuitive: it is not broken down exactly into the main points discussed in the Lead (e.g. how information is collected, public expectations of information privacy, how fields such as data/computer security design software to address information privacy).

Article 2: The article is well-written, concise, and does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is organized intuitively: the first section is "Background." which provides an overview and history of the subject; the second section is "Theory," which goes further in depth into theory's reasoning and expert commentary; and the last section is "Response," which documents public reaction to the theory.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: There are no images included in the article.

Article 2: There are no images included in the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: Many conversations discuss the subjectivity of this Wikipedia article: editors suggest changes to "commanding" and "biased" language to more neutral wording. This article is part of the WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass surveillance. Wikipedia discusses this topic with a neutral, academic tone.

Article 2: On the Talk page, editors are discussing word-choice in the Lead to make it more accurate. One editor pointed out that Zuboff did not "coin" the term surveillance capitalism, and that it should thus be changed to a phrase such as "used and popularized." The article is not a part of any WikiProjects, but is considered an "article of interest" for 15 WikiProjects. It is rated Start-class.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Article 1: This article is rated as C-class on all of its projects' quality scales. I think this article has a strong Lead that is concise and easily understandable. I think the article could be improved by fleshing out some of the subsections more; many sections are underdeveloped. I think this article is not as complete as it could be.

Article 2: This article is rated as Start-class overall. I think the article is strong in its clarity and organization: it is intuitive to follow and understand. The article could be improved with supplemental sections; I think creating subsections that present advantages and disadvantages of surveillance capitalism would make the article more comprehensive and tie it back well to main points made in the Lead.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback:

Lead
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It also covers all the major sections in the body.

Content
The contents are all relevant to the topic and up to date. I think there are still rooms for further expansion of this topic, maybe you can discuss the specific groups and purposes for the use of disinformation attacks.

Tone and Balance
The content is added neutral and non-persuasive, and each segment has a balanced weight.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Some contents are not cited with references, but I believe you will work on it later. The sources are also thorough and diverse.

Organization
Guiding questions:

The content is concise, clear, and easy to read. There is no grammatical errors, and the content overall is well-organized.

For New Articles Only
There are also some details such as infoboxes and links to other articles that I'm sure you will work on it later.

Overall impressions
Overall this topic fills one of the content gap and has a very promising progress so far. You can see if there's any other relevant aspect of this topic and expand it.

Peer review from plusoneplusone
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.

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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The first three paragraphs are started by “Disinformation attacks” so maybe using another way to start off the second and third paragraph might be better. Also, it might be helpful to link keywords like twitter, instagram, facebook to other wikipedia articles. The Lead is concise and is worded straight-forward and easy to understand.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * 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? Yes

Content evaluation
I like the organization of sections within your article, but a suggestion that depends on different people would be where to put the examples section and ethical concern section. I might put them after defense measures. Also, it might be helpful to have a short two to three sentences in the beginning of each section that summarizes or gives an overview to the section. The content added to the article is well thought-out and is supported by a variety of resources which shows effort and time spent on your draft.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is neutral and only facts and explanations are written without any opinionated words. The article is also balanced as no one section is significantly longer or shorter than others without reason.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * 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.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources referenced in the article are up-to-date and relevant to the topic. It is also cited throughout the article. Only three more sources are needed to be added to your article, so you are almost there!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have 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?

Organization evaluation
The third bullet point under Social Media: “A deep fake is digital content” to “Deep fake is a digital content”

Other than that, the article looks great! It is concise and clear to read with great organization of sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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? The list of sources are great, just need three more.
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
The articles have several hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pages and have a “see also” section that includes other related Wikipedia articles which is great!

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The examples section is great which lets readers understand the topic in the real-world example. The lead section is very helpful for me to understand the topic as a beginner.
 * How can the content added be improved? More defense measures, there are currently two.

Overall evaluation
The article is concise and the Lead section is greatly written. The strengths and weaknesses of the article are written in the guided questions. So far so good!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Lolabaylo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes, it's brief and covers topics of the draft
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Sort of, expand upon this.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? pretty concise, but might be better If it listed out the specific titles and categories of the article

Lead evaluation
Good lead section, perhaps make various sections a little more clear! :)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, it's edited recently.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Overall the content is pretty good. You can expand on the Islam social media campaign "Dawn of Glad Tidings" a bit. Also you could consider talking about the evolving technology used by disinformation hackers or influencers. It would be cool to talk about a few other categories/ways of disinformation beside from social media.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, since disinformation could affect anyone/all countries, then the article addresses equity gaps.

Content evaluation
Please see above suggestions regarding contents to add.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, but maybe focus on more things in addition to social media.
 * 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 get a sense that disinformation attacks are bad and the examples prove it. This is the point of the article though.

Tone and balance evaluation
Good job overall! I would add more contents that balances out social media.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, consider adding more sources that are not related to social media disinformation (like maybe voting disinformation, machine disinformation, data analysis disinformation, etc)
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes all academic sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
Good job adding sources. Consider adding more next week!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it's concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I've seen.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, but need more sections. Yes it's well organized, but could break down certain large paragraphs or article topics into subtopics.

Organization evaluation
Good organization, consider breaking down some concepts and topics!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Consider adding some images. For example, Russian disinformation reports, disinformation technology, social media deepfakes, etc.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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? The list seems good so far. Add more sources not related to social media.
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? You did a few links, but consider adding more linked terms such as deepfakes, echo chamber, block chain, etc.

New Article Evaluation
Consider linking to other pages more often.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, it's adding new content in a concise way.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear lead section. Good categories broken down in terms of topics of disinformation attacks. I also like the examples the author gives such as Russian attacks and Islamic campaigns.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more pictures, add content not related to online/social media disinformation (can consider real-life/in-person disinformation), and link to a few more pages on Wikipedia.

Overall evaluation
Good job overall! Continue improving! You got this! :)

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Lolabaylo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Disinformation attack

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes the article includes several types of disinformation attacks, but the sections are not delineated.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, good lead section! Consider adding a few other sections such as (types of disinformation attacks, "Defense measures" as it's own section maybe --?)

Lead evaluation[edit]
Good lead section, but make sure to include whatever sections you add to the section as introductions.

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, make sure you finish your article to include more references and citations, but so far the sections are pretty developed.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but it is still in the process of writing, consider adding a section that addresses equity gaps in disinformation attacks.

Content evaluation[edit]
Good content so far but use more sources (and also cite more sources, try to have at least one source cited per paragraph) and expand on additional topics and add new sections.

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? mostly yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The content is good so far, the author takes on a particular stance with the sentence "These attacks are commonly employed to reshape attitudes and beliefs, drive a particular agenda, or gain control over political public opinion"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? So far the article only talks about the aspects about disinformation attacks.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not really, the article's lead presents a sentence that could take on a stance, and the sentence "Disinformation attacks can pose threats to democracy in online spaces, the integrity of electoral processes such as the 2016 United States presidential election, and national security in general"

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, but include more than 5 sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not sure, the authors are usually academics, not sure about diversity.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Need to add more sources!

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, so far it's concise!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not really, the sentences are concise and short.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Since the article only has one section so far, I can't tell. But for every section be sure to break them down into digestible parts that reflect the lead section.

Organization evaluation[edit]
Good organization so far, make sure when you are writing your next sections, add subsections to break down each section further.

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


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

Images and media evaluation[edit]
consider adding a couple for biological data, how it appears, or examples of it.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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? only one source, please add more.
 * 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
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Nope, you need to try to link your article to other articles.

New Article Evaluation[edit]
Add more sources and link to other articles similar/related to yours!

Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the content so far introduces the topic of disinformation attacks but should have more sections added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? it's concise and all sentences support the lead section. also it's easy to read and the sentences form smoothly.
 * How can the content added be improved? more citations/sources for next draft, link to other articles, add some new sections, and add examples to current sections.

Overall evaluation[edit]
Good job so far! I would continue to add new contents and make sure you cite sentences or paragraphs!

Peer review (Brian)
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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and also gives an overview of the rest of the article. It does not contain irrelevant material.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is relevant and up-to-date. The article contains examples from 2016, and there are no information that seem to not belong. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, the article is generally neutral and does not contain personal beliefs of the writer. However, I will say that I noticed a strong focus on Russia specifically in your examples and ethical concerns paragraph.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the article contains multiple sources from academic articles that are up-to-date.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have 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?

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article does not have noticeable grammatical errors and is easy-to-read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
Currently, the article does not contain any images or media.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
Overall, the article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements and contains an exhaustive list of sources. It also contains multiple references and "see also" pages to make the article more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, great draft you have so far! One suggestion I would give is for you to perhaps look into disinformation incidents from a non-political standpoint and give examples of that!

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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and it covers all the major sections of the article. The Lead also contains an introduction about the article's main topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is up-to-date and all of them belong to the article. No specific Wikipedia's equity gap is addressed, but the Ethical Concern section address on some groups under the influence of the issue.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and not biased towards a specific subject.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article contains abundant citations and they are current (from 2015 to 2020). The sources are diverse and the links I checked all worked!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is well-organized, I really like how major sections are ordered as the way the Lead introduces different topics. It's easy to follow.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
Currently the article does not include images.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
The article meets the requirement because it contains more than 3 sources. The article also provides lots of hyperlinks for relevant topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think your article looks great! There are detailed information about for each section and lots of extended information. Adding in more images can make your article more appealing.

Peer review (HanMiKC)
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? 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?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is very informative, understandable, and concise. I would suggest briefly mentioning something about the ethical concerns in the lead, since that is a section you have in your article. For example, "Some ethical concerns are..." or something along those lines. Also do that same thing for the education/awareness section, since that is also absent from the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is all relevant, and the information comes from recent sources, so it is up-to-date, The article does address the effects that disinformation attacks on things like voting, which inherently encompass issues of underrepresented populations. I'm unsure how else underrepresented populations can be mentioned for the rest of the paper.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral. There are more sections about the cons, such as ethical concerns, but this isn't an issue since the topic of Disinformation attacks is inherently negative. The information is presented without bias, and that is what matters.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources work and are all relevant and recent. I think the professions of the authors are diverse, ranging from tech to history. I'm unsure how to gage other points of diversity. Some sources discuss the negative effects disinformation attacks have had on the public throughout history, so I would say such marginalized individuals were included.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is easy to read and understand. However, some of the more historically-based sections can be hard to follow just because history can be very dense. I would suggest putting more hyperlinks to other wiki articles throughout these sections, rather than all at the end.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
No image to be evaluated, though I do believe the article would benefit from one.

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
Yes the article satisfies the questions above. Again, while you do link to plenty other articles, I would try and incorporate the hyperlinks throughout the entire article (like how you did for the first paragraph of the Defense measures section).

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Very solid article, very well-written. The format looks like a normal Wikipedia article. Some suggestions I would make are addressing certain sections in the lead section, adding hyperlinks throughout, and possibly add an image. Overall, good job!

Review (Leadership team)
Hi Lolabaylo, your article looks really good and pretty clear. I read though the article and learned about its methods and examples which is really interesting. Also, I noticed you already have multiple in-text citations, which is great in demonstrating that the article is credible and supported by sources. Another thing is that I see you have a concerns section which is also pretty nice to show your objectivity. In general, I really like your draft. Here are some specific suggestion:


 * First, you could consider to add more hyperlinks to guide your readers to the specific topic you mentioned in the article
 * Also, I think you already have multiple citations in your article, but consider to add 3+ to satisfy the requirement.
 * For the subtitle "defense measure", you could probably consider to separate the public and private measure into their only subsections so your audience could navigate more easily.
 * Another thing is the "federal and private" under the "defense measure" section. Since you also talks about other international attacks and cases(Russian one), it may be more consistent to change "federal" into anther broader term or just indicate that these are the measures taken in the US. So it is more consistent with your other discussions putting this topic in a global context.

In all, I think you have a great draft for your article. Good luck on your final draft and symposium!

Peer review (Madssnake)
week 11 peer review

Lead
I really like your lead! I think you did an expert job on keeping it both concise and informative, as I was able to understand what disinformation attacks are right away. You also prefaced the following sections, which is great. I would maybe suggest adding a bit more variety to your paragraph starting sentences––there are a lot of  “disinformation attacks (can)”, so maybe change the sentence structure a bit?

copy edit suggestion: when mentioning the 2016 election, maybe add something like “electoral processes, as seen in the 2016…” instead of “such as the 2016…”

Content
I think your article’s content is great, and you have equal amounts for your sections. I think you did a great job discussing the various aspects of disinformation attacks.

suggestion: in the social media section, when discussing the study, maybe say who it’s by: “a study by ___” … (I know you cite it, but I think it would benefit the reader to know the source.

suggestion: I know your article is not about deepfakes and you linked a wikipedia article to it, but I think you could explain what it is a little better (like how they actually manipulate a voice / speech or something (I’m not super familiar with it, so don’t quote me on that lol). As a reader I’d like to know what type of digital content is being manipulated and how, just because you don’t give any specific examples.

I like how you give the Russia Today example in the traditional media outlets section. Maybe add some examples to the social media section if you have any?

copy edit suggestion: change “Russia - Crimea” to “Russia-Crimea” (I thought the phrase ended at Russia because of the space between the hyphen)

Tone and Balance
Your tone is neutral, and you don’t try to persuade the reader to any type of conclusion or opinion that you have. However, I would like to note that although you state in a neutral tone what Russia did, there is not really any mention of why. I would maybe include any justification that Russia and others had, if there was any?

Sources and References
I see that you already have a lot of Wikipedia articles links, which is great! I think you can add more Wikipedia article links to some proper nouns/specific entities in your Examples, Ethical concerns, and Defense measures sections (Facebook, Google, NATO, etc). I also saw that you have 20+ articles referenced. I would be sure to fix that date in that one source with the data issue, and then you should be good to go!

Organization
I think you organized your article well, and it flows nicely. I did not come across any grammatical errors when reading, and I think you’ve done a great job presenting the information clearly and concisely.

For New Articles Only
I believe this is a new article, and it does follow the Notability requirements. You have many reliable sources, and follow the patterns of other Wikipedia articles. I like how you have a See Also section. An image may be nice to add, although I’m not sure what of––maybe some propaganda from Facebook by the Russians?

Overall impressions
Overall, I am really impressed with this article! I can tell you put a lot of effort into writing it, and I enjoyed reading and learning about disinformation attacks. As you can see, I don’t have many suggestions (but see above for the few), and I definitely think this is mainspace ready :) Great job! Madssnake (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
Great lead. It was well-written, concise, and clear, and you hint at your article's main sections. The only thing that I would suggest is that you should link key terms in your Lead (e.g., "AI," "Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube," "2016 United States presidential election") to other Wikipedia articles to help readers connect to related content and to help your page be found more. Great job!

Content
The content is relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are over- or -underrepresented.

Sources and References
All of the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources are thorough and current, with the most recent one being published in 2020. They are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. I checked some of the links, which work.

Organization
The content added is well-written. It does not contain many grammatical errors and contains no spelling errors. The content is very well-organized and is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Copy-edits:

"Russian campaigns" section:

- Delete "and" in "These political ads leveraged user data and to micro-target and spread misleading information"

- Delete the spaces between "Russia" and "Crimea" in "Russia - Crimea conflict of 2014" (i.e., it should be "Russia-Crimea conflict of 2014")

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
N/A. Try to find and add some relevant pictures if you can! They can be related to deepfakes, the social media companies, Russia Today, etc.

For New Articles Only
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The list of sources seem thorough. The article links to other articles so it is more discoverable, but it could and should link to many more articles. For example, you could link "Russia - Crimea conflict of 2014" to the page for "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation." You should also make links to the projects you mentioned (if there are pages) and to the Azerbaijani president.

Overall impressions
Really good job on your article! The writing is high quality and neutral-toned. You broke down the article into little sections and bullet points, which helped me digest the information more easily. The only thing I would suggest you do is make more links to other Wikipedia pages. Great job!

Lead
The lead is very well-written and gives the readers a brief taste to lead into the rest of your article. You did a very good job and I don't think there is much to change! The only thing would be to start off with disinformation being singular.

Copy edit: " A Disinformation attack is....."

Content
There is a lot of good information, and I was able to learn a lot from reading your article! You hit the main points, and I think it's almost ready for uploading! There could be more emphasis on things like the education and awareness that could talk about other countries other than Europe. Other than that, the readers will definitely learn a lot from this article!

copy edit: under social media bot section "...the illusion that a piece..."

copy edit: under social media section "...harnessed to defame, blackmail, and impersonate others (or be more specific as to who).."

copy edit: under social media "selective attention, and echo chambers, contribute (make it singular since phenomena is plural)

Under defense section, where it says "difficult for actors" do you actually mean actors? Or maybe you meant attackers?

Tone and Balance
The article is written in a neutral tone, so there isn't anything to worry about there. The only thing would be maybe the balance of the article. There seems to be a lot of information on either the U.S. and Russia so maybe it might be a good idea to bring up other countries and their responses to disinformation attacks. You don't want it to seem super biased or that you are from the U.S. so try to include other countries if you can sneak in a small sentence or two in this home stretch!

Organization
I think it is very well organized, and I was able to understand the information and felt that everything corresponded with the right header. There wasn't too much information in one section, which can make it hard to read, so that made it easy to read.

Images
Having an image would be great if you can find one, so I encourage you to look into finding something you can include if you have the time.

New Article
The article meets the notability requirements and has lots of sources to back up your claims.

Overall Impressions
It is very clear that you spent time writing this, and you did so in a very clear and direct way. I would just say if you can try to include other parts of the world other than just mainly focusing on the U.S. and Russia would be good, but if you can't find any information on that then don't worry too much. Other than that you did a great job and I hope you feel proud of what you have done! ~