User:Rachelkmoy/Deepfake/RiaVora Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
- I am reviewing Rachelkmoy's work
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rachelkmoy/sandbox
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- No, because the draft has not been added to the actual article
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The draft of the article does not include the introduction, so no
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Each part of the draft is sectioned out into its relevant sections
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes! the information she provided is not widely explained in the article
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Will have to wait until the lead is updated to reflect her changes! We have not merged the draft and the article yet :)
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes! She specifically describes how Twitter and Facebook were used to spread deepfakes, which is the article topic
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the links she is using are recent
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is no content that doesn't belong, but there could be more specifics (like quotes from Twitter's policies for example) in the article draft!
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- Not from what I read
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, it seems to be fairly neutral in a political way, but biased against deepfakes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- Deepfakes are seen as manipulated media meant to harm, but that seems to be a general view not a biased one
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, they seem to be viewpoints consistent with the rest of the article
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Every sentence is backed up with content, but I'm not sure if all of them would be considered secondary sources. Also, she uses the same source for multiple sentences, which may not be the best practice (find other sources that re-affirm?)
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, but they could be biased, because many of them come directly from the social media platforms
- Are the sources current?
- Yes. Most if not all seem to be from 2020.
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Most of the articles are written from the social media organization's perspective or a news outlet, which isn't historically marginalized individuals but still can be considered a reliable source.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes!
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes! It is a bit chunky however, and the sentences could be reworded to be more easy to read and flow better
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I found.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- It is well organized, but I do think that Facebook could have its own section considering its history with the topic, instead of being merged with Twitter
Organization evaluation[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
- It does have 4 - 5 sources from news outlets
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- It does not cover all literature, but it covers a substantial percentage of the reliable literature on the subject! There is room for more extreme views and views in favor of deepfakes
- 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?
- Yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
- No, I would recommend this!
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, the draft substantially added to the article
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- The information seems unbiased, reliable, well-cited, and well-structured.
- How can the content added be improved?
- More links to other Wikipedia articles and a different separation fo sections!