User:Luckyclover44/Spy pixel/LowIQPotato Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Luckyclover44


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luckyclover44/Spy_pixel?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead is very short, but it gets to the point. There's not much mention fo the following subsections, but as a lead it is very concise and provides a solid overview of what is to come.

Content:

The content seems complete; from history, to mechanics, to usage, this article covers it all. Nothing is out of place here as we see every aspect of Spy Pixel put out there. There is a bit of mention to the equity gap at the end, but it's very broad and not well defined. By this, I mean there's a mention of groups' privacy being taken advantage of, but there isn't too much info on the groups affected and how much they were affected by Spy Pixel. There's no inherent bias present, as the article serves to inform, and does simply that.

Tone and Balance:

The content is neutral; the author wants to explain and gives an incredibly holistic view of the literature about the topic. As a result, it's hard to say anything was over/underrepresented in this article (which usually means balance, and that's good).

Sources and References:

Considering our project team, there are reliable sources and the information is based off of them. Strong sources with functioning links, that's all we can really ask for.

Organization:

The structure is very methodical and logical, and this is a result of following the style of most wikipedia articles out there. That's not to say it's good or bad in terms of structure, it's just typical. That is not bad! We are introduced to the background, build up on the mechanics, and end with our outcomes, consequences, and reactions. Standard stuff, and for this article it works REALLY WELL! There's no errors that I could catch.

Images and Media:

There are no images and it makes sense.

For New Articles Only:

The new article will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knowing the work the lab has to do, the sources will be extensive and exhaustive in the knowledge they provide. The article links to other articles, making the article more discoverable. In terms of patterns, I see the standard structure most articles follow.

Overall Impressions:

Great article! I see it as informative and to the point (no beating around the bush which I like to see). Strengths: concise in nature, easy follow due to the logic of the structure, well-defined sections. Improvements/things I would like to see: emphasize the equity gap a bit more, just flesh it out a tad.