User:Madssnake/Mutual authentication/Lolabaylo 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
I am reviewing Madssnake's article draft, "Mutual authentication."

Lead
The lead includes an introductory sentence that is succinct and gives a clear definition of mutual authentication. The lead provides an overview of the article's major sections: it lists the two types of mutual authentication and summarizes how they protect sensitive information. However, it does not mention system applications, which has its own section and is extensively written about later in the article outline. Overall, the lead is concise, not overly-detailed, and provides a clear summary of mutual authentication.

Content
The content is relevant to the topic: it discusses various cyber attacks that mutual authentication defends against, explains the types of system applications that can leverage mutual authentication, provides detail on password-based mutual authentication, and lists ways in which mutual authentication can be verified. The content is up to date, and cited information comes from recent and relevant sources. There does not seem to be any content gaps (however, in the lead, two types of mutual authentication are listed. Only one - "Password-based mutual authentication" - has its own section in the article. Maybe adding a section for "Certificate based mutual authentication" would make the article more comprehensive). I do not think this article directly deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The content is very neutral, based in fact and reputable sources, and does not include judgement statements. There are no claims that seem heavily biased, and information is presented in an objective manner. For example, in the "Password-based mutual authentication" section, the positive and negative aspects of this type of mutual authentication are discussed equally. There are no noticeable viewpoints that are overrepresented, and the content does not seem persuasive.

Sources and References
Almost all content is supported by a reliable secondary source. There are some sentences (such as in the "Lead" and "Lightweight schemes vs. secured schemes" sections) that have [SOURCE] at the end. I assume this is just a placeholder for when an appropriate source is found to support this information. All sources are thorough and current: the majority have been published in the late 2010s and come from academic journals. Sources are written by a diversity of authors (one is a researcher in India, others are researchers based in China).

Organization
The content is well written. The writing style is objective, concise, and academic at times. There are not grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well organized: the section order (scheme defenses - system applications - password based mutual authentication...) seems logical and is easy to follow.

Images and Media
Peer did not include images or media in this article draft.

Overall impressions
The content provided improves the quality of the current mutual authentication Wikipedia article. Information about the types of attacks mutual authentication defends against, as well as the types of systems that utilize mutual authentication technology, is provided in detail. This new content is useful because it is detailed and comprehensive (for example, in the "System applications" section, each system application type has a paragraph of relevant information provided). This content could be improved with a bit more elaboration on other sections, such as the "Verifying mutual authentication" section.