User:Rachelkmoy/Deepfake/Dalexandertom 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? (Rachelkmoy)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rachelkmoy/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes what article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead includes brief descriptions of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not include information that isn't present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the lead is concise, but not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content about deep fakes and social media is relevant to the topic discussed.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The added content is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like all the content presented is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not particularly.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think this article may appear slightly in favor of democrats by providing more instances of right-wing deep fakes compared to democratic ones.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the content is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources are diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content presented is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I don't notice any noticeable grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content in the article is well-presented and is divided well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content added improves the quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think the added details about the responses of companies to deep fakes add lots of value to the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think she can add more examples of democratic deep fakes to improve the balance of the article.