User:Luckyclover44/Spy pixel/Stellasuperba Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Luckyclover44


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Luckyclover44/Spy pixel
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Introductory sentence is good, but the lead does not outline the material in the rest of the article (this is from the article, not the sandbox, not sure if this is an original article). In general, the lead could probably stand to be developed a little further.

Content
The content appears to be relevant and is generally clear. There are a few quotes that are not attributed to anyone. All of the information seems to be up to date, but given that I know next to nothing about the topic--its a little hard to say. The sources were published relatively recently. In terms of expansion, there are probably more regulatory measures that have been relevant to the content. Also, have there been any major scandals that utilized the spy pixel?

Tone and Balance
All of the content is extremely objective (some of it very technical). Again, I can't speak to whether there is any missing content given that I don't know the breadth of the subject. IT doesn't appear to address an equity gap, but I can't really figure out how it would.

Organization
The article would really benefit from an easily accessible lead that explained the concept in layman's terms and provided a clear outline that tied together the relevant sections. There are no major spelling or grammar errors. The article flows pretty well.

Overall Impression
Article is well written and does a good job of explaining the actual mechanism of the spy pixel. Not sure if there is room to expand, but I do think the addition of more sources would be helpful. Also curious about the italics--are those quotations? If so they should be cited and put in quotation marks. Looks good.