User:Stellasuperba/Predatory advertising /LowIQPotato Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Stellasuperba


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Predatory Advertising


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

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:

Super strong lead. The information here gives a clear and concise picture of what I am about to read. Even for the amount of detail in the lead section, I'd say the information is precise enough to warrant its size.

Content:

What I like about this content is it immediately starts by talking about equity gaps and vulnerable groups. Instead of stowing this section to the back of the article, where most articles do put a typical section like this, this article puts this at the forefront, pretty much flaunting its reason for existing, and I love it. Every subsection is meticulously woven to match with the core concept of how predatory advertising can be (it's actually a bit scary when Amazon and Google are able to figure out what I want to buy before I do). I like that there's both a very technical side and more literature based side in this article, with the algorithms and case examples, respectively. Everything content wise seems well balanced and makes sure to show as much data as possible to ensure the work represents the whole spectrum of information.

Tone and Balance:

As stated above, this article says everything that needs to be said, but it's also done in a way that nothing seems persuasive. The content is to show and explain, nothing more.

Sources and References:

Again, considering the sources we had to find, I'd say this article has strong sources to back it up. The links function properly and given the context, I'd say this article is built on a strong foundation of previous knowledge.

Organization:

In terms of organization, this article breaks the norm of putting vulnerable/affected groups at the beginning; I am a fan. Typically something like this is reserved for the end of a wikipedia article coming after all the build up of background knowledge and context. However, here, it serves to enhance someone's purpose for reading, as we are immediately introduced to the significance of the article. Besides that, the article follows a typical structure that makes sense, and it works well. No errors grammatically/spelling-wise that caught my eye.

Images and Media:

There are no images in this current iteration of the draft.

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 abundance of knowledge this article divulges and usage of citations shows a strong foundation. There are cleverly used links to other wikipedia articles to get the word out that this new article exists and has meaning.

Overall Impressions:

What an article! Your content follows a very logical flow that doesn't inherently rely on technical terms to get by. It's an easy yet extensive read that is nothing but informative. The strengths I found are: structure, abundance of information, the content being shared concisely. Those stood out to me. In terms of improvement: I got nothing! Great article!