User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace/LowIQPotato Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Penguinblueberry


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace?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 serves its purpose; it briefly introduces the topic clearly and concisely. It also gives minor tidbits of information that help a reader grasp the effectiveness of the technology being discussed. Only reservation is the fact that the 97% accuracy tidbit is later repeated, making it seem redundant to have in the lead. Otherwise, the lead is solid.

Content:

The content appears to be relevant to the overarching topic, which is good. As we are in the process of drafting, the article is obviously going to be missing some things content wise, but as far as I can see the content appears to be rather complete in terms of the sections attempted. Of course, there is always more room for information to put in the "Reactions" section, and depending on how transparent Facebook is with the technology, maybe a little more in "Methods" couldn't hurt. I think "Commercial Rollout"'s first section looks great in terms of content. To address the equity gap side to Wikipedia, I feel you could use the "Controversy" section to address this.

Tone and Balance:

The content seems neutral; there are no phrases or sentences that attempt to persuade the reader to think a certain way. The information is laid out for everyone to see. I do feel though that there is a lack of balance in the "Reactions" section, maybe a few more snippets could help tip the scale to equilibrium (in terms of overrepresenting/underrepresenting certain viewpoints). Bias looks nonexistent, keep it up!

Sources and References:

Considering our project team, there are reliable sources and the information is based off of them. References/citations are being used abundantly, so that's a good sign that the article builds on prior knowledge rather than a single source or opinion.

Organization:

For me personally, I would have put the "Methods" section before "Commercial Rollout" as I would like to see how something works before I see its implementation. HOWEVER, that is simply a me thing, and I think the structure works fine as is. Nothing is written in a confusing manner and the writing flows well down the page. As far as I could see, there are no grammatical errors that stand out.

Images and Media:

There are no images in this current iteration of the draft, and overall I don't see the need for any.

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 this structure as a bit similar to those of other articles with a "Methods" and "Commercial Rollout" section (this is good by the way).

Overall Impressions:

The article seems to be coming along well! I think the information in terms of how the technology came to be is well written about, but I would also like to see some expansion in the how it works (i.e. "Methods" section) if possible, and maybe some more juicy gossip in the "Controversy" section. Just keep working and you'll have a great article!