diff --git a/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex b/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex
index c0c3c9c983464c201196962e58066a44114ba694..f9a57aa5c57ec472949bf00b9d868bc7a1340c87 100644
--- a/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex
+++ b/thesis/4-Edit-Filters.tex
@@ -402,6 +402,7 @@ Filters on the other hand, are arguably(syn) easier to use: here, ``only'' under
 
 Critical voices express different concerns about the individual mechanisms:
 %Different pitfalls and concerns are express
+%TODO finish
 
 \begin{comment}
     \hline
@@ -544,10 +545,10 @@ Apparently, Twinkle at least has the possibility of using heuristics from the ab
 \subsection{Conclusions}
 %Conclusion, resume, bottom line, lesson learnt
 
-In short, in this chapter we found/worked out following salient characteristics of edit filters: ....
-
-
-So, as shown in figure~\ref{fig:funnel-with-filters}, edit filters are crucial since they get active before any of the other mechanisms.
+In short, in this chapter we studied edit filters' documentation and community discussions and worked out the salient characteristics of this mechanism.
+We also compared the filters to other quality control technologies on Wikipedia such as bots, semi-automated anti-vandalism tools and the machine learning framework ORES.
+We studied(syn) the filters(syn) in the context and time of their introduction and concluded that the community (syn) introduced them as a means to fight obvious, particularly persistent (syn), and cumbersome to remove vandalism.
+Revising the quality control mechanisms collaboration(syn) diagram~\ref{fig:funnel-no-filters} we introduced in chapter~\ref{chap:background}, we can now properly place the filters on it: see figure~\ref{fig:funnel-with-filters}.
 
 \begin{figure}
 \centering