User:Maxgemm/Existential risk from artificial general intelligence/Psu431editor 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? Maxgemm
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Existential risk from artificial general intelligence

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead does not seem to be altered recently.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead is informative and explains the definition/theory of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It does a good job of explaining the risk aspect of the upcoming sections with their arguments, and mentions some time-frames.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead describes the information to be presented in the article, and I did not see something irrelevant to the upcoming content.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It goes into detail of describing the risks and concerns of the topic, but it does not overload you with information. It includes the main points of the article which are expanded on in later sections.

Lead evaluation
The lead does not have any issues as far as I'm concerned. It explains the topic with some risk arguments and counterarguments, and some examples to make it more clear for readers.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is relevant to the 'existential risks' throughout the article, and does not diverge from the important material.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date with some edits coming in recently for the "taxonomies" section. Edits have been made in 2020 to reflect the advancement of AI.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The content is all relevant and pertains to the topic. There are no distinguishable points missing from the article that are mentioned in the "Talk" page for this article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Does not relate to underrepresented populations/topics because the AI threat is a more recent concern that deals with humanity as a whole rather than sub-groups. It is mainly discussed among the science and tech community.

Content evaluation
The article contains a lot of relevant content, and I cannot notice anything that is crucially missing. The "Talk" page of the article has some suggestions for changes that can be made for the content with the biggest suggestion relating to a "Taxonomies" section. I did not find that mentioned section in the article so that could be a change to update the article for relevance.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The overall content shows some bias in the discussion. There is a trend of information in the article with a mentality of "AI vs us", and that can be perceived as a bias against AI whereas the article should remain neutral on that topic.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the 'Skepticism' section, it mentions that the arguments against the AI threat are "irrational", and seems derogatory to those who believe it.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The viewpoint supporting the AI threat are represented fairly in the article considering it is about the risks of AI, but the non-believers of this threat are underrepresented throughout, and do not receive fair representation on their criticisms.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content attempts to persuade the user into believing that AI is a major risk rather than being unbiased towards the risks.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is not neutral throughout as some viewpoints are underrepresented. The "Perspectives" section needs to be updated for a balanced tone in the article to share the support and criticisms without being biased towards a single narrative.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article has a lot of sources backing up the information being presented.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The articles are relevant and thorough. Most sections have several sources whenever applicable to reflect modern literature on the article.
 * Are the sources current? The article being edited is current with many recent edits for content and sources. The sources are current and contain useful information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources range from online articles to scientific studies. There are some sources from news websites like 'The Guardian" or "BBC News", and some journals from Oxford and "The Scientific American".
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work and send me to the correct address/location.

Sources and references evaluation
The article has a lot of sources to back up their words throughout the article so that the information comes from reliable locations. The sources are also modern and relate to a current perspective of society towards the AI risks and concerns. The article is listed as "C-class" so there is always more opportunities for more sources to be added to improve the credibility of the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and well-written while explaining the content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There were no glaring errors that I noticed in the article that would make it illegible.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article was updated a few years ago to have a different organization, so it seems well-organized with a lot of relevant sections.

Organization evaluation
The article under review is well-organized without any major errors that could affect how readers view the article. The sections are placed so that they are coherent to the topic, and ending the article with perspectives and regulations.

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

Images and media evaluation
No image added by peer.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

New Article Evaluation
Article is not new.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The added content reflects on social risks from AI that may have been missed previously. It is an issue that is important to the AI risk analysis, so it does improve on the article while keeping a balanced tone.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It includes some small details of how AI is currently being used. It is something that may have been missed due to the modern capabilities of AI that were unheard of years ago. This reflects the changing times and capacity at which AI can perform.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be expanded on to include more sources and examples of how AI is being used socially.

Overall evaluation
The article is important to modern society when considering the public concerns related to AI. The content added here is vital information for general privacy, and it needs to be explained in more detail to encompass the different ways AI can be abused. More sources need to be added that pertain to the subject.