User talk:Natasha.Holdt/Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal/D3032447367 Peer Review

Peer Review by D3032447367
General info Whose work are you reviewing? User:Natasha.Holdt Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Natasha.Holdt/Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

Lead evaluation Currently, the group shows no changes to the Lead to reflect the new content added; however, I don't particularly think any additions are necessary, as all content additions are to prior article sections that are already briefly described within the Lead. The Lead currently has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly descries the topic; as mentioned previously, it also is concise with brief descriptions of all major article sections so no additions are necessary.

Content evaluation The content added is all relevant to the topic, and is also up to date with all information stemming up until 2019. I would just make sure there are no advancements after 2019 that are important to include to the article.

Tone and balance evaluation The content added is neutral and embraces a Wikipedia neutral point of view, as it is primarily states facts.

Sources and references evaluation Given that the original article has numerous citation errors, I believe that citations are something that should be focused heavily on. That being said, there were numerous areas within the additions where citations should have been placed, but none were. Some of the following are examples of this situation: "In 2016, Ted Cruz hired Cambridge Analytica to aid his presidential Campaign. The Federal Election Commission reported that Cruz paid the company $5.8 million in services. Although the British Company was not well-known at the time, this is when it started to create individual psychographic profiles", "In 2018, the British Parliament questioned SCL director Alexander Nix in a hearing about Cambridge Analytica’s connections with Russian oil company, Lukoil. Nix denied any connections between the two companies despite concerns that the oil company was interested in how the company's data was used to target American voters.", "On March 6th 2019, Mark Zuckerberg released a statement on Facebook regarding future aspirations for a more privacy-focused platform. Acknowledging Facebook’s recent tainted reputation for providing privacy protective services, Zuckerberg explained that the company will consult individuals and entities from all over the globe when moving forward with rebuilding their services. This rebuilding strives to make Facebook a more privacy-focused messaging and social media platform based on the core principles of private interactions, encryption, reducing permanence, safety, interoperability, and secure data storage.", etc. With this in mind, I would thoroughly go through all additions that have been made and ensure a citation addition is not needed; if one is needed, it is extremely important to add it to improve the quality of the article, rather than adding to its errors in citations. For the citations that did exist, all sources were current and reliable. In addition, for all links I clicked on, they worked.

Organization evaluation I would say the content is well written, as it is concise but very knowledgeable. In addition, all additions are properly segmented into an existing section, which is very beneficial to making it easy to read for the reader. I saw no grammatical or spelling errors as I read through.

Images and media evaluation This evaluation is largely irrelevant given that the group did not make any image or media additions. That being said, I would suggest that the group potentially look into adding potential media clips or images regarding some of their additions; for example, they could add an image of Mark Zuckerberg's statement release on Facebook, etc.

D3032447367 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)