User:Rachelkmoy/Deepfake/Brandonqin 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

• 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?
  • Yes, there is a specific mention of "industry and government to detect and limit their use", which is applicable to your draft on platform responses as well as government and political interactions.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, this is not a new article, the introductory sentence accurately describes what a Deepfake is.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • It does, but it also seems to lack some larger areas of mention about government and political usage. Deepfakes have seen a lot of traction in these areas, and although it is briefly mentioned, it seems to lack a description on that major section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, all information in the Lead is present in the article or accurately sourced/linked.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise and to the point. It has a good amount of intro information as well as an overview of what the article entails

Lead evaluation

Overall, the lead in this article is well done. It accurately depicts a picture for the user describing what a Deepfake is as well as its current usages in society. It shows many different sections of the article, including applications, concerns and responses. As your draft is largely about the responses from platforms like Twitter and Facebook, I see the lead being very applicable to your topics. The only concern or addition I would consider would be adding more explanation on the government and political implications of Deepfakes, as it mostly touches upon social aspects, fraud, and news currently.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content is relevant to the topic as there is a section dedicated in the article to responses from different parties, and one of the larger subsections being internet reaction. With adding topics on Facebook, Twitter, Nancy Pelosi, etc. would all be relevant examples of the usage of deepfakes in areas that are mentioned, like social media platforms on the internet as well as the government.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the Twitter events written happened in 2019-2020, as well as the Nancy Pelosi incident.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • Could add more balance in the government examples, as you mention Nancy Pelosi, it might be beneficial to also look into Republican figures to add a good balance to make sure that there is no implicit bias with selection.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Not necessarily, but this technology could affect voter information and perceptions especially in underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation

Great content, there's a lot of relevant information and topics covered that are very recent, and as Deepfakes are an ever-growing topic, I think it'll set a great foundation for future Wikipedians to build upon. I would just add more balance in the governmental figures selected, as this could create bias without the right people. If this would be too much too add another section about another politician, it could be cut down to just focus on platforms as the Nancy Pelosi section is only currently a few sentences.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, except for the before mentioned issue of having a politician balance, as it would be selective bias to only talk about democrats or only republicans.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, it seems impartial and the sources look good too.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Again, mentioning the point of political parties, and potentially looking towards different media platforms as well, potentially even far-right platforms as twitter is known to be rather liberal.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, it is just merely stating facts and summarizing articles in a non-plagiarizing way, which is good.

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone of the draft is impartial and does not have any keywords that would implicate a bias of any sorts. However, if we are thinking of selective bias, it may be best to always balance out topics that you are writing about, as only focusing on Nancy Pelosi and deepfakes may instill biased feelings towards Democrats or Republicans.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, draft has an ample amount of sources within it coming from reliable sources of information.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, they are published sources.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, as they mainly are about topics from the 2019-2020 political and social space.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • They don't seem to target any historically marginalized individuals specifically, but they are from a diverse spectrum of authors.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, they link to real articles and websites.

Sources and references evaluation

Sources and references look good! If we were looking to improve, I would maybe consider looking at Wikipedia's marginalized individual goals, as that may help improve an already solid bibiliography.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, has good points but aren't extremely extravagant or hard to read.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No glaring spelling errors, but I do see some spacing issues for example before a period where there should be no space. Also, some things are underlined so not sure if it was intended.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, has sections that would fit well into the article.

Organization evaluation

Well done, just double check for small errors like spacing, but overall the wording and grammar seems to flow well

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

This draft would definitely make a great addition to the deepfake article. Just a few things to keep in mind when looking towards a second draft, more diverse political representation, checking for spacing/any small errors, expanding upon different social media platforms. I think what you have right now is very good and also has a great bibliography! Flows well with the current article too and would definitely fit in.