User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace/Luckyclover44 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Penguinblueberry


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace


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

Lead

 * Lead hasn't been updated to reflect changes in the article (has been moved to a new section in body of article?)
 * Maybe add a little bit on "reaction" and "current uses" (once the section is more developed)
 * Lead includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
 * Lead does not include information that's not in the article
 * Lead is concise and not overly detailed

Content

 * Content added is relevant to the topic
 * Content is up to date

Tone and Balance

 * Content is neutral
 * No biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views
 * Maybe elaborate more on ways it has been helpful (i.e. you mentioned identifying faces in photos) since there are lot of negatives
 * No persuasion

Sources and References

 * Sources appear to be reliable
 * Sources are kind of diverse (lots of news sources)

Organization

 * Article is well-organized and structured
 * No spelling or grammatical errors but there are places where spacing is off (under "Commercial Rollout" between "Tel Aviv University" and "Yaniv," between "the" and "option")

Overall
Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article on DeepFace. The additional information you added really made the article a lot more informative! Great work, and I can't wait to read more on its current uses.