User talk:Penguinblueberry/DeepFace/Stellasuperba Peer Review

Peer review

Lead:

Lead section looks good for the most part. Just a few minor suggestions. The sentence "DeepFace shows human-level performance" is a little confusing. You may be able to get rid of it given that the last sentence says that DeepFace performs as well, if not better than, humans. Also, it may be useful to put something in your lead section about some of the controversies around DeepFace, given that it is mentioned elsewhere in your article. Same goes for rollout date--could be helpful to include that in your first sentence. Other than that, the lead is concise and gives a good overview of the topic.

Content:

Content appears to be relevant and up-to-date. Look forward to seeing the "current uses" section, as I imagine that will probably make up the bulk of the content. Also, I feel like the "Efficacy in Comparison" subsection could potentially be a better fit under the "Method" headline. Finally, it would be cool to see a little more on some of the suits that have been brought against deepface, including whether or not they were won. It would be a nice way to tie it into a larger scope of privacy, especially in the American context (although, I suppose you could add foreign cases, if those exist). That said, it looks good!

Another thing--and this may touch on the equity component. If I remember correctly there was some serious issues with racial bias in facial recognition software. Not sure if this was specific to the DeepFace software (if not...disregard), but I think it was facial recognition at large. If so, that might be a really valuable segment to add to the article--maybe under the controversy section.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article is unbiased. Any information that casts a value judgment is cited as an objective representation of others' opinions. There is no attempt to persuade the reader in either direction, and both sides (positive and negative) are equally represented in the article.

Sources and References:

Most of the citations seem to be websites and periodicals. Would be good to see some peer-reviewed journals. That said, the information seems to be up to date.

Organization:

The content is well-written and is organized in an intuitive manner. As mentioned above, it may be helpful to add something to the lead section about the reactions/controversy around DeepFace, given that those are covered in your article.

New Article Considerations:

I believe the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements (I imagine Forbes falls under the "reliable" category). Would be good to link to other articles (i.e. Facebook, Facial Recognition, Privacy, Biometrics, etc.).

Overall impressions:

Article looks good! Look forward to seeing what will be included in the "current uses" section. Only suggestion: More peer-reviewed content cited, assuming it exists. Otherwise, nice job.