diff --git a/thesis/2-Background.tex b/thesis/2-Background.tex
index dd5eeac3afbaafcddb2e06048835041fa149b43f..8d9314695058353405026b64738f7193c5469849 100644
--- a/thesis/2-Background.tex
+++ b/thesis/2-Background.tex
@@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
 \chapter{Background}
 \label{chap:background}
 
-To this end, in the current chapter we study scientific literature on vandalism in Wikipedia and the quality control mechanisms mentioned above in an attempt to determine the role of edit filters.
+In the present chapter we study scientific literature on vandalism in Wikipedia and the quality control mechanisms applied to counteract this vandalism in order to better undersand the role of edit filters in this ecosystem.
+There are works on vandalism in general/vandalism detection, as well as several articles dedicated to the role bots play in mainataining quality on Wikipedia (cite... ), a couple which discuss combating vandalism by means of semi-automated tools such as Huggle, Twinkle and STiki (cite).
+Time and again, the literature refers also to more ``manual'' forms of quality control by editors using watchlists to keep an eye on articles they care about or even accidentially discovering edits made in bad faith.
+There is one mechanism though that is very ostentatiously missing from all these reports: none of them ever mention (is this really true?) the edit filter mechanism.
 
 \section{Vandalism on Wikipedia}
 %TODO put here papers on vandalism
@@ -11,9 +14,6 @@ Papers discussing vandalism detection from IR/ML perspective:
 
 \section{Quality-control mechanisms on Wikipedia}
 
-%TODO Literature review!
-% How: within the subsections? as a separate section?
-
 \cite{AstHal2018} have a diagram describing the new edit review pipeline. Filters are absent.
 
 Why is it important we study these mechanisms?