User:Exploredragon/Evercookie/Lilmeowmeow3161 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

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Evercookie
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Exploredragon/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead includes an extra sentence that includes new links and extra citations that are much more in depth!
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, the lead provides a general overview of the major sections but is brief in analysis.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is easy enough to read and has several citations and extra links which is appropriate.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content added was more background information which was suggested in the first peer-edit.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, but the references section is missing some of the citations in the body of the article.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, the article focuses on information privacy with an emphasis on a NSA security leak.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the article remains largely technical and definitional.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • Not really, the sections are focused on Background and Description.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, there are several linked sources to other Wikipedia pages.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • There are currently 14 sources and a majority of them are pulled from academic journals.
• Are the sources current?
  • Yes, the oldest source is from 2010.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • The sources are pretty diverse, not sure if they include historically marginalized individuals.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Not to my knowledge
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • There are two sections and so far they seem well developed. I think there is definitely room for expansion and improvement, but the existing sections are relatively thorough.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, at the top of the page.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The article is more complete now that the author has included the links to some of the existing Wikipedia articles. It is written in a more clear and concise manner that would make it easier to read for audiences at the beginner level.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • More content on the applications of Evercookie would be helpful in understanding how it functions in a practical sense.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Including more information on historical and marginalized groups, given that you cover security violations, this could be a section where you could include that information!