Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? 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? Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? 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? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

Whose work are you reviewing?

I am not reviewing someone's work because I am reviewing a general article which is the product of multiple people's work.

Link to draft you're reviewing

I am not reviewing someone's Sandbox Draft but rather just the article as it is currently present on Wikipedia.

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

Deepfake

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead does have an introductory sentence, but the language used to define what a a deepfake is is very technical and could be confusing to the average reader.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does not give a proper overview of the article as it does not really enumerate the sections of the article and what they entail.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is quite short and could give a clearer overview of the article by adding a few sentences that describe the different sections of the article's content.

• Is the content added up-to-date? The content in the article is not quite up to date as it lacks examples of deepfakes from the past few years. There's very few mentions of deepfakes in 2022. The addition of examples of deepfakes could make the article's content more relevant and up-to-date.

• Is the content added neutral? The article's content is neutral for the most part. In the "Concerns" sections, there a few sentences that speak of deepfakes as negative and harmful, which is not a neutral perspective on deepfakes. However, since deepfakes are considered harmful by most governments and corporations, it would be difficult to remain neutral on the topic, especially in a section called "Concerns".
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The legal response section of the article does not give a larger overview of the legal response for deepfakes and instead only briefly detail the responses from the United States, China, Canada, and the United Kingdom, leaving the reader in the dark about how many other countries have responded to deepfakes and what they entail.

• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? The content featured often reflects what the cited sources say.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are a lot of sources used for the article's content, covering in great details many examples of deepfakes available for the general public.
• Are the sources current? The sources are all fairly recent, a lot of them being articles written in 2019 up to now, giving the reader an up-to-date read on what a deepfake is.
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Most information avaialbe on deepfakes online are mainly from news articles, which is the majority of the sources used for the article's content. Thus, the best sources available to find content for the article are most likely news articles from reputable newspapers.
• Check a few links. Do they work? The majority of the links featured in the sources sections are functional and lead to the article that was used as a reference.

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well-written, but the language used is very technical and could be tricky to understand for the average person reading the article who does not know a lot about AI and its related domains. The article can be quite difficult to read for said reason.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is broken down into sections that reflect important points about the topic. I do find that the "In popular culture" section should have been placed earlier in the article, possibly in between the "Applications" and "Concerns" sections, rather than at the very end as it seemed off-balance to put after the "Responses" section.

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are two videos of deepfakes present in the article, both of which are relevant to the section where they are found. There could however be more examples included as two is quite a small amount for this topic which could use the help of media to be more clear to the average reader to understand what a deepfake is.

• Are images well-captioned? The video of Kim Jung-On featured is simply captioned "Kim Jong-Un" which gives no context behind the deepfake or what Kim Jong-Un is doing in the deepfake
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The videos are well-placed in the article as they provide an example for the paragraph right next to them.