User:MaryJane404/sandbox

Article Evaluation #1

Name of article: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy) Information privacy

Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This was the article provided

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?: Not exactly

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: It provides a link to explain expectation of privacy but doesn't have a section specifically within the article

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It is concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes

Is the content up-to-date?: Yes, the last edit was 8/17/20

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: The section on education gives a specific example whereas the other topics in that section give an overview of what is going on in that field. Maybe put an intro in the education section that is similarly structured to the other sections. It also didn't really explain the sexual exploitation part at the end.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: I didn't see anything about marginalized groups.

Is the article neutral?: Well it's based off the premise that privacy dissemination is bad so technically yes, but it's mostly just informative.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? It seems to make it clear that Michael Gove is bad.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: It could further explain how the data is being used.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: It attempts to persuade the reader to protect their private information and gives instructions on how to do so.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: The section on finance doesn't cite any sources.

Are the sources thorough. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Yes, though only one source is cited for most claims so it's hard to know for sure.

Are the sources current?: Most of them are within the last ten years, there was one from 1976.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: Not that I can tell, it usually just cites the publication.

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No

Checking the talk page/What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?: People disagree on the name. Someone wants to re-name it "Informational Privacy", there were some dead links found, and someone removed a section that was opinion not fact.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?: It's rated C meaning it's lacking information. It's part of "Wiki Project Mass Surveillance", "Wiki Project Computing" and "Wiki Project Internet".

What is the article's overall status?What are the article's strengths?: It's still a work in progress. There are a lot of links to direct information in terms of laws.

How can the article be improved? More diverse sources.

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is one sided.

Artical Evaluation #2

Name of Artical: Surveillance capitalism

Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I'm interested in how my personal data is used

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?: It is a vague description that covers the issues of the article, but not a summery of the specific topics of the article.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: It mentions possible advantages but they aren't covered in the article. Links are given to look into advantages.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: The first part of the lead is a concise thesis.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: Yes.

Is the content up-to-date?: Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: Most of the topics covered could be elaborated on.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: No

Is the article neutral?: No it's premise is a negative attitude towards surveillance capitalism.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No except that it mainly covers the work of one person.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: The article doesn't cover any arguments in defense of surveillance capitalism.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another: It is based off the dangers of the subject so yes, but doesn't tell the reader what to do/think.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Doesn't provide citation after the claim of implications.

Are the sources thorough. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: An disproportionate amount of information comes from Shoshanna Zuboff.

Are the sources current? yes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?: As stated above, too many of the sources are from one author.

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written: Sometimes it feels like the author tries to fit too many concepts into one sentence.

Spelling errors?: No

Well organized: No

Does the article include images that enhance the topic?: No

Checking the talk page/What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?: People dislike that the article revolves around the work of one person, Shoshana Zuboff, rather than the topic itself. There is a complaint about the first paragraph being uninformative. It seems to have been revised sense then.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?: It's not rated, it was nominated for deletion, and is of interest to many wiki projects: Wiki Project- Mass Survelence, Business, Economics, Politics, Law, International Relations/Law, Globalization, Sociology, Computing, History, Internet, Internet Culture, Futures Studies, Google, and Capitalism.

What is the article's overall status? What are the article's strengths?: Needs improvement. Explains controversy well.

How can the article be improved?: It should cover the theories of more people, not just Zuboff.

How would you assess the article's completeness: Incomplete, badly structured, can not fully developed

• Copy Edit All-or-nothing

All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (First Draft)

The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets is a computationally secure scheme developed under cryptographic assumptions developed by Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, and Jean-Marc Robert.

Introduction

The two-bit problem (2BP)

Let's consider a case involving two people, Alice and Bob, who are trying to share secrets with each other following a particular framework. Alice has two secrets (two secret bits), one of which she is ready to reveal to Bob. Bob can pick which one of these he wants to know, but cannot learn more than one bit of information (any function related to the bits) on Alice's bits. In case (if) Bob does not (doesn't) cheat(,) and obtains the physical bit of his choice, Alice doesn't get to know which one of her two secrets (bits) were revealed.

The all-or-nothing two-bit problem (AN2BP)

In a similar case, Alice has two secret bits and she is ready to disclose one of them to Bob, according to his choice. Bob cannot, in any way, obtain more than one physical secret bits(is bits always in plural form?). This is because the framework is set up in a way that as soon as he obtains information on one of the bits, he cannot gain any information on the other secret bit. As in the previous case, Alice does not know which one of her two secret bits were revealed to Bob.

The all-or-nothing n-bit problem (ANNBP)

This is very similar to the AN2BP problem. Only in this case, Alice has n secret bits instead of only 2. She will follow a similar framework as the previous case and disclose one of them to Bob according to Bob's choice.

The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (ANDOS)

Alice has a particular number of secrets; and as described above, she is willing to disclose one of them to Bob at his choosing. However, Bob is not allowed to gain information on more than one secret. Bob, on the other hand, does not want Alice to know what secret he is interested in. The framework is set up in a way that if Bob gains any information on any one of Alice's secrets, he will not be able to gain information on any of the other ones.

Peer Review - Quackdon

General info[edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? MaryJane
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox#All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (First Draft)

Lead[edit]

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?

Lead evaluation[edit]

The lead is concise and provides a brief description of the article's topic. However, the lead doesn't include the article's major section.

Content[edit]

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?

Content evaluation[edit]

The content is up to date and does not deal with equity gaps or represent historically underrepresented populations or topics. However, the content doesn't seem to show the relevance between the major sections and the article's topic. An extra sentence in the lead section may enhance clarity.

Tone and Balance[edit]

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?

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

The content is in neutral tone and there aren't biases. Viewpoints are not over-represented or under-represented.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Content is backed up by reliable secondary source, although not cited within the text. The sources reflect the available literature, written by a diverse spectrum of authors and are current. The sources are work.

Organization[edit]

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?

Organization evaluation[edit]

I think the content is concise and there aren't grammatical or spelling error. However, I think it'll be clearer if a definition is provided for each major section before jumping straight into examples.

Images and Media[edit]

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?

Images and media evaluation[edit]

No images included.

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?
• 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[edit]

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?

Overall evaluation[edit]

Overall, I feel that the content doesn't entirely reflect the article's topic but I think this can be easily improved by adding a sentence that links the article topic to the main sections as well as providing a definition or a brief description of what the main sections are before jumping straight into examples. The examples are comprehendible and are presented in a clear manner. Finally, sources should be included.

Peer review - Imakespaghetti29

• Peer Review All or Nothing Disclosure of Secrets
• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Imakespaghetti29
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User: Imakespaghetti29/sandbox#All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (First Draft)

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?n/a
• 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?no
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? needs more

The leas is too short and needs to explain the article more.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?n/a
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? more elaboration
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no view points
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

no bias, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedic article.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

There are no sources

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?no
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?no
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?yes.

Hard to assess because no outside context is given for the info.

Images and Media[edit]

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?

NA

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?no
• 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?

The article does not meet the Notability requirements, as it has no sources.

Overall impressions[edit]

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? Uses examples
• How can the content added be improved?

The article needs to be written like an encyclopedic article as in mainly for information. You need do describe what you are talking about.

Peer Review Indiscriminate Monitering

General info

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

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• 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? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise.

There should be no first person.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? N/A
• Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? N/A
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Content evaluation It seems that the content is just an outline.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? N/A
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? N/A
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? N/A
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?N/A

Tone and balance evaluation: n/a

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? N/A
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?N/A
• Are the sources current?N/A
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?N/A
• Check a few links. Do they work?N/A

Sources and references evaluation: There is no source or refrences

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? N/A
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?N/A
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?N/A

Organization evaluation There is no content

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned?N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

Images and media evaluation There is no images or media

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? N/A
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?N/A
• 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?N/A
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation There is no sources or links to other Wikipedia

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A
• What are the strengths of the content added?N/A
• How can the content added be improved?N/A

It was only an outline so these things couldn't be assessed yet.

Guiding questions

• 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
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The second part is confusing.

Lead evaluation[edit]

Need to clean up lead and add links.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?Yes
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?Yes, most terms aren't explained and sections not elaborated on.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?No

Peer Review

User:Niangao/sandbox#Checking the talk page 2

Hard Privacy Technologies

Niango

Content evaluation[edit]

Content looks like it's still an outline missing information.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?No

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

The Tone is neutral.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?No
• Are the sources current?No
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?no
• Check a few links. Do they work?Yes

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Looks like there is only one source cited.

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?No
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?Yes
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?Yes

Organization evaluation[edit]

Lot's of Grammar and spelling errors.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?No
• Are images well-captioned?No
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?no images
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?no images

Images and media evaluation[edit]

There is no images in this wikipedia.

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?none.
• How is the article rated?n/a
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? n/a

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status? n/a
• What are the article's strengths? Good outline
• How can the article be improved? Information needs to be filled in and grammar/spelling corrected.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? underdeveloped

• Peer Review
• Name of article:Soft Privacy Technologies
• User:BunnyShampoo/sandbox

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
• 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 short and concise

Lead evaluation[edit]

The lead is very short 4 lines and tells a concise overview of the article.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? No
• 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? No

Content evaluation[edit]

The lead explains the topic and includes topics covered in the article, but linking other articles would be useful to define terms.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]

There are no indication of opinions or bias claims? No.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

Reliable sources, good variety but could use more.

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some sentences need to be re-structured.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation[edit]

Avoid phrases like "They do the same thing" because it sounds too casual. Look over grammar, for example "Smart cards is a new and developing technology used to authorized a user for certain resource" Isn't grammatically correct.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation[edit]

There was no images or any visuals in this article.

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? non
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? n/a

Talk page evaluation[edit]

n/a

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

What is the article's overall status? Not sure. Maybe this could be made more clear in the article.

• What are the article's strengths? detailed and well organized.
• How can the article be improved? explain the topic better.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? pretty well developed.

Overall evaluation[edit]

Pretty solid just needs to be a bit more clear. Explain the privacy concerns.

Mary Jane 404 Peer review[edit][edit][edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit][edit][edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Moonstar0619
• Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moonstar0619/sandbox?action=edit

Lead[edit][edit][edit]

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?

Lead evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The lead is a bit disorganized but does include the topic covered.

[edit][edit][edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• 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? No

Content evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The article's content is relevant to the topic, up-to date.

Tone and Balance[edit][edit][edit]

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[edit][edit][edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The sources I saw were good but I couldn't see them listed at the bottom. I think you need a few more.

Organization[edit][edit][edit]

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? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The content is well written and easy to read. It's a bit underdeveloped, but the specific legal area it focuses on is explained well.

Images and Media[edit][edit][edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only[edit][edit][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?
• 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[edit][edit][edit]

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?

Overall evaluation[edit][edit][edit]

The article is easy to read but not very developed. The specific area which is covered is well written, but I think there are more angles to look at the subject besides legality.

Mary Jane 404 peer review of Eddyd101

General info[edit][edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Eddyd101
• Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eddyd101/Artificial_intelligence_in_hiring?action=edit

Lead[edit][edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No
• 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 concise

Lead evaluation[edit][edit]

The lead is concise and informative, just needs a summary of the topics.

[edit][edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• 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? No

Content evaluation[edit][edit]

The article's content is relevant to the topic, up-to date. I would suggest being more specific like saying which activist groups are against screeners and which studies have shown bias.

Tone and Balance[edit][edit]

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[edit][edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit][edit]

I couldn't see the sources and there were only a few links. They work but maybe consider adding more.

Organization[edit][edit]

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? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation[edit][edit]

The content is well written, well organized, and easy to read.

Images and Media[edit][edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation[edit][edit]

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only[edit][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?
• 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[edit][edit]

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?

Overall evaluation[edit][edit]

It's a solid article that is easy to read and interesting. The tone is a little opinionated. Maybe try to be more detailed and add other view points

Mary Jane 404 Peer Review[edit]

• Whose work are you reviewing? Sauceboss12
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

Lead[edit]

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?

Lead evaluation: The lead is strong and contains most of the article sections but not all.

Content[edit]

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?

Content evaluation: The content is relevant and up to date. It does not deal with equity gaps.

Tone and Balance[edit]

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?

Tone and balance evaluation: The content is neutral.

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation: The sources are relevant and up to date. The links I checked work.

Organization[edit]

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?

Organization evaluation: The content is concise and well written. I didn't see any spelling errors.

Images and Media[edit]

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?

Images and media evaluation: The image is appealing and a good touch.

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation:

Overall impressions[edit]

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?
• The article looks really strong. It's thorough, well written, and well organized. My only suggestion is to not use the passive voice like "us" because it doesn't sound encyclopedic

Mary Jane 404 Peer Review[edit]

• User:Tinayyt/sandbox
• 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?
• The lead is overly detailed and hard to read. It does include the topics of the article.

Content evaluation

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content 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?
• All content is relevant. It doesn't deal with equity gaps. I can't see the sources so it's hard to tell if it's up to date.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions

The article's tone is neural, not particular bias toward a specific entity, and there is no persuasive language.

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• The article requires concentration to read. There are a couple spelling/grammar errors. Automotive is spelled wrong and the sentence

"There are many criteria to test depends on the product or process that are testing on, and mainly, there are five components that are most common" needs to be re-written.

• Well organized but should go deeper into each criteria.

Images and Media[edit]

Guiding questions

The article does not have any media/images.

• 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?

Checking the talk page[edit]

Guiding questions

The talk page include suggesting and the reason for editing, this article is rated as C-Class.

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article has a solid base but needs to be built upon more. Adding more content to the criteria and re-wording some sentences would be good.

Plans for Internet Vigilantism Article

I plan to go further into the methods section by citing widely known examples of how these methods have been used. I also want to add other methods. I plan to introduce more terms related to the topic such as Human Flesh Search Engine. I want to create a section on cyber vigilantism in China as I feel this is a big topic. In general I want to go into the main areas that have been largely impacted by cyber vigilantism. I want to cite significant occurrences which have happened because of cyber vigilantism, and explain how it's changing cyber investigation, and how criminal investigators have interacted with cyber vigilantes. I want to cover both the positive and negative aspects of cyber vigilantism.

Ideas for Adding to Article Evaluations

Are there statements in which the meaning or point is not clear?

Do the images in the article influence or manipulate the viewer's opinion on the subject?

Improving Internet Vigilantism Article

Needed improvements: I plan to re-write the second half of the lead because I don't think it's an accurate definition of internet vigilantism. I'm going to change "Lack of central control/oversight over the Internet has enabled vigilante reactions against certain behaviors in the same way that they have prompted those behaviors to occur in the first place. Internet vigilantism often occurs due to an inability to effectively police the Internet" to: The expanding scope of media savvy and online interaction has enabled vigilantes to utilize methods specific to the internet in order to distribute justice to parties they consider to be corrupt, but who have not committed a formal crime or have not been held accountable by the criminal justice system.

I will elaborate on the description section, explaining the terms listed and providing examples.

Sections I will Add

I plan to add to the methods section terms such as Doxing, information entropy, sousveilence, reintegrative shaming, human flesh search engine, LOIC, and denial of service attack.

I plan to add an origins section with anecdotal examples of cyber vigilantism in China and Singapore and explain the cultural context of cyber vigilantism in Asia, and Russia as I continue my research.

After this I will add a section on the relationship between vigilantism and the state, going into how cyber vigilantism complicates investigations but has also been used to aid them, and the responses of different governments towards cyber vigilantism.

After this I will add a section on cyber vigilante groups such as Anonymous, vigilante pedophile hunters, and other groups as I continue my research.

Other articles to link

Human Flesh Search Engine, Anonymous, sousveillance, Don't Fuck with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer, Internet censorship in China, Asian Values.

Rough Draft

Internet vigilantism is the act of carrying out vigilante activities through the Internet. The term encompasses vigilantism against alleged scams, crimes, and non-Internet related behavior.

The expanding scope of media savvy and online interaction has enabled vigilantes to utilize methods specific to the internet in order to distribute justice to parties they consider to be corrupt, but who have not committed a formal crime or have not been held accountable by the criminal justice system.

Internet Vigilantism originated in the early two-thousands and has since evolved to include a variety of methods such as hacking, baiting, and public shaming. Internet vigilantism changes in cultural and political drive depending on location, and has varying relationships to state authority depending on context.

Description

The term internet vigilantism describes punitive public denunciations, aimed at swaying public opinion in order to “take justice into one’s own hands” by engaging in forms of targeted surveillance, unwanted attention, negative publicity, repression, coercion or dissuasion. Associate professor in sociology Benjamin Loveluck identifies the four main forms of internet vigilantism as: flagging, investigation, hounding, and organized denunciation. Also referred to by Steve Man as Sousveillance, meaning "to watch from below", internet vigilantism can work as a type of peer surveillance. This is based on the premise that shame can be used as a form of social control. Augustė Dementavičienė defines the phenomena through the concept of Swarms, which are "Short term relationships between consumers formed for the purpose of achieving a goal". There are muddied overlaps between internet vigilantism and cyber bullying, as both utilize public shaming methods, and cyber bullying may sometimes be conducted under the guise of internet vigilantism. This is in the case that the vigilante "realizes they aren't achieving social justice but utilize it as a means of rationalizing their acts". Cyber Bullying often involves publishing of private information to publicly humiliate the target, but is typically driven by affordance rather than a desire for social change. Digital vigilantism can also overlap with digital activism, as the awareness of a social issue may increase due to the dissemination of information and weaponization of visibility associated with digital vigilante tactics. Visibility enables the broadening of social outrage, and is used in digital social justice campaigns such as #MiTuInChina.

Methods

Internet Vigilantes use a variety of methods to conduct vigilante activities.

Online shaming The act of publicly shaming other internet users online. Those who are shamed online have not necessarily committed any social transgression, however. Online shaming may be used to get revenge (for example, in the form of revenge pornography), stalk, blackmail, or to threaten other internet users. Emotions, social media as a cultural product, and the mediascape, are all important factors as to how online shaming is perceived.

Doxing, is the act of publishing personal details online to incur social punishment of the target. In 2019, the Kentucky Senate proposed a bill to ban the doxxing of children after a teenager, Nick Sandmann and a Native American activist, Nathan Phillips were filmed in a confrontation at a protest rally which went viral. Sandmann's father claimed his son endured "The most sensational Twitter attack on a minor child in the history of the internet."

Redintegrative shaming is public shaming based on the perspective that the act is meant to shame the behavior rather than the target, and that the target can be redeemed and reintegrated into society. This approach utilizes shame as a means of social control and deterrent from deviating from social norms.

Human Flesh Search Engine is a method originating in China in the early 2,000s, which works as a cyber manhunt. It consists of crowdsourcing and pooling together information from the public via online forums to conduct vigilante justice through the internet.

Information Entropy in the field of internet vigilantism, is an act intended to disrupt online services.

Denial-of-service attacks are a form of information Entropy conducted by online vigilantes, which involves a widespread effort to make a website inaccessible to legitimate users. The method is to provide so much traffic to the website that it crashes. This is also known as a Denial-of-service attack. DOSAs grew in popularity due to Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC), which is an open source application that enables denial of service attacks.

Hactivism is when hacking is used as a form of political activism.

Scam baiting is when vigilantes interact with scammers simply to waste their time and energy.

Identity theft activism is similar to scam baiting but deals with identity theft.

Origins

Cyber Vigilantism originated in the early two-thousands. It gained traction as a widespread social phenomena in China, where it has been used as a method of exposing government corruption and utilizing civic engagement. It is also a means of sharing previously censored or unavailable information. The popularity of these activities arose due to the Human flesh search engine, which enables the conduction of cyber manhunts. The first of these manhunts was conducted in 2006, when a video surfaced online of a woman killing a kitten with her high heels. A similar example can be seen in the Netflix TV show Don't F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer, in which a widespread effort by internet vigilantes is made to track down a serial cat murderer on the internet, who had been posting anonymous videos of their activities. In 2008, cyber vigilantism was used in Shenzhen China to expose a government official for attempted child molestation. Surveillance videos from the restaurant in which the assault took place were released on the internet to expose the official, as he had claimed his government position would protect him from incurring any punishment.

Cyber Vigilantism has also been used to punish online bullies. For example the case of Megan Meier, a teenager who committed suicide due to online bullying. The perpetrators were doxxed by bloggers who committed themselves to ensuring their social punishment and loss of employment.

In Singapore, cyber vigilantism became a popular form of peer surveillance and is largely viewed as a form of civic engagement. Whereas acts of online vigilantism in China have largely been used as a means of punishment and exposing social corruption, cases in Singapore revolve mainly around exposing fellow citizens for inconsiderate behavior such as not cleaning up after one's dog. Online shaming is viewed by the vigilantes as redintegrative shaming, as they claim their actions are a means of shaming the behavior rather than the perpetrator. This brand of vigilantism is seen as being in line with the morals of a largely collectivist society.

Internet Vigilantism can also take the form of Dark Justice, such as when vigilante pedophile hunters pose as children online in order to ensnare sexual predators.

Relationship to Authority

Digital vigilantism can be viewed as a menace to the authorities, or an expression of digital citizenship, depending on the context. Vigilantes may view their actions as digital citizenship if they are seeking to improve the safety of online interaction.

According to K.K Silva, "Vigilantes’ responses to perceived malicious activity have reportedly caused the loss of digital evidence, thereby obstructing law enforcement’s effort in ascertaining attribution and jurisdiction over cybercrime offences." Therefore internet vigilantism is generally in opposition to legitimate criminal investigations, and viewed as tampering with evidence. However, there are cases in which internet Vigilantism is legally protected, such as when it falls under laws relating to protection of the other.There have also been cases in which vigilantes have cooperated with criminal justice investigations, such as the cases of BrickerBot and WannaCry ransomware attack. In both of these cases, vigilantes cooperated with authorities, utilizing cyber crime methods to fight cyber crime and prevent further damage.

Conversely, Internet Vigilantism can also work for the interests of the Government or for the government, as is sometimes the case in Russia. Two non profit groups practicing internet vigilantism, Liga Bezopasnogo Interneta (LBI, Safe Internet League), and Molodezhnaia Sluzhba Bezopasnost (Youth Security Service), attempted to pass a bill that would enable unpaid volunteers to regulate the internet, also known as the Cyber Cossak movement. These groups argue that their aim is to identify content that is extreme or dangerous for children such as child porn, and track down the creators of the content", however the bill has drawn a lot of skepticism from those who argue it is reminiscent of Soviet era peer surveillance, and that it's a breach of data privacy rights.

The Russian youth group Nashi (youth movement), who conducted a vigilante project called StopXam (organization), has even been publicly supported by Vladimir Putin, who has posed for a picture with them. The group became prominent in the Russian media through publicly shaming bad drivers and filming their (often violent) altercations with them. The group fell out of favor with the Russian government and was liquidated after targeting an Olympic Athlete.

In the case of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville Virginia, internet vigilantism was used to help police track down violent protestors, as well as bring justice when the police were considered by the public to be doing so inadequately. This included doxing and public shaming of the protestors via twitter.

Internet Vigilante Groups

There are many internet vigilante groups permiating the internet, with different motivations and levels of anonymity.

Anonymous (group) A hacktivist group responsible for Operation Payback

Liga Bezopasnogo Interneta (LBI, Safe Internet League) A Russian non-profit dedicated to regulating extremist material online.

Molodezhnaia Sluzhba Bezopasnost (Youth Security Service) A Russian non-profit dedicated to regulating extremist material online.

StopXam (organization), also known as "Stop a Deuce bag", is a Russian youth group that publicly shames bad drivers via online videos.

Zomri A Slovak online community which publishes political satire on Facebook, in means of inspiring civic engagement.

Peer Review - BunnyShampoo

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? MaryJane
• Link to draft you're reviewing: MaryJane

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and provides a brief description of the article's topic.

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?

Content evaluation

The content is up to date and does not deal with equity gaps or represent historically underrepresented populations or topics. It is relevant and up to date.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is in neutral tone and there aren't biases.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Content is backed up by reliable secondary source throughout the whole article very throughouly.

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?

Organization evaluation

The content is very organized in a specific structure.

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?

Images and media evaluation[edit][edit]

No images.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation

The article does link to other wikipedia pages.

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?

Overall evaluation

Overall, I like how the article is structured and it is nicely done. I think this article could use some images and more details in some sections. For example the description on "Identity theft" and some other were kind of unclear.

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) MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No
• 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 concise

Lead evaluation

The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• 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? No

Content evaluation

The article's content is relevant to the topic, up-to date, and quite detailed.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

The article has a neutral tone as there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the content is based on fact instead of viewpoints.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable and thorough secondary source of information, and links of resources do work. The sources are also current as the it includes sources from recent years.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

The article is not easy to read since some of the sentences are quite long. The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors, and it is also well-organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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?

Overall evaluation

The article's overall status is relatively solid as the content is concise and related to the topic. The article can be improved in the way that provides more reliable sources and also link to other related articles.

The article's overall status is relatively solid as it is concise and the resources cited are reliable. The article can be improved in the way that breaking long sentences into short ones to make them easier to read.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No, it would be helpful if the article included a slightly more expanded lead section that previewed the article's sections and gave a slightly
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the Lead section is discussed in the body of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

The Lead section establishes a definition of internet vigilantism and provides a concise introduction, however it could be improved by adding a brief description of the sections included in the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? The article appears mostly up-to-date. Most of the examples are from the 2000s, but I am unsure if anything more recent should be added.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong. I did not notice anything missing.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation:

The article has strong content, especially in the "origins" and "relationship to authority" sections. The vigilante group section could be expanded.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appeared to be heavily biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article seems to be balanced and to not overrepresent any viewpoints.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not persuade.

Tone and balance evaluation

The article is balanced and has a clear, neutral tone. There are a few tone shifts in the article, however this is purely style.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, content is cited by reliable sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they appear to represent available literature.
• Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I am unsure. It appears to represent authors from a few different disciplines and some U.S. and Asian scholars.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The article has all working links. The article cites its sources, which are current.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes and no. Some sections are well written while others could be made more clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few..
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections reflect major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation

The article does a good job of dividing the topic into sections. There are a few weird phrasings or minor grammatical issues.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added? The article does a really good job of describing what vigilantism is and its origins.
• How can the content added be improved? The article could give examples for some of the methods, like doxing and add a section for notable cases of internet vigilantism.

Overall evaluation

The article is informative and well structured. It could use some editing to become more clear and to expand less developed parts (the lead section and the internet vigilante section in particular). This is a very solid rough draft. ~eddyd101

Peer review (Tinayyt)

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) MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions: The lead is clear, but can be shorten a bit to make it easier to read.

• 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? The lead is concise

Content

Guiding questions: The content are relevant to the topic and most reference are up to date.

• 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: The content is presented in a neutral tone.

• 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: Most content are back-up by reliable sources.

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions: The article is not very easy to read since the lead is very long, and some sentence are a bit harder to understand

• 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 No images added.

• 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 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?

Overall evaluation

The article's overall status is relatively solid as the content is concise and related to the topic. The article can be improved in the way that provides more reliable sources and also link to other related articles.

The article's overall status is relatively solid as it is concise and the resources cited are reliable. The article can be improved in the way that breaking long sentences into short ones to make them easier to read.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No, it would be helpful if the article included a slightly more expanded lead section that previewed the article's sections and gave a slightly
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the Lead section is discussed in the body of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

The Lead section establishes a definition of internet vigilantism and provides a concise introduction, however it could be improved by adding a brief description of the sections included in the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? The article appears mostly up-to-date. Most of the examples are from the 2000s, but I am unsure if anything more recent should be added.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is no content that does not belong. I did not notice anything missing.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation:

The article has strong content, especially in the "origins" and "relationship to authority" sections. The vigilante group section could be expanded.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No claims appeared to be heavily biased.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article seems to be balanced and to not overrepresent any viewpoints.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content does not persuade.

Tone and balance evaluation

The article is balanced and has a clear, neutral tone. There are a few tone shifts in the article, however this is purely style.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, content is cited by reliable sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they appear to represent available literature.
• Are the sources current? Yes, the sources are current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I am unsure. It appears to represent authors from a few different disciplines and some U.S. and Asian scholars.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

The article has all working links. The article cites its sources, which are current.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes and no. Some sections are well written while others could be made more clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few..
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections reflect major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation

The article does a good job of dividing the topic into sections. There are a few weird phrasings or minor grammatical issues.

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?

Images and media evaluation

The article does not include images.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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? Yes
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Peer review by panacotta101

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) MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

The Lead can reflect new content added and it is concise. The first sentence introduces the topic. The last sentences briefly describes following sections.

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?

Content evaluation

Content added are relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It does not deal with equity gaps.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

Content added are neutral and does not biased towards a particular position. It discusses both sides of the topic.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

Most sentences are backed up by reliable sources. Most sources are current and from different authors.

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?

Organization evaluation

Content added is well written. There are not many grammatical or spelling errors. Sections are divided clearly. Order of the sections could be modified to make the article goes more smoothly. The structure of Measures section could be clearer.

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?

Images and media evaluation

No image has been added.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation

NA

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?

Overall evaluation

The added content makes to original article more complete. They present the topic comprehensively. The content could be improved probably by making the language easier to understand.

Peer review by sfwarrrios99

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? MaryJane404
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:MaryJane404/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and provides accurate information. The lead starts with a well written introductory sentence than builds upon the topic.

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?

Content evaluation

The content is relevant and up to date. There are no equity gaps.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content is neutral and no group is under or over represented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The content is backed by reliable secondary sources of information.

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?

Organization evaluation

The content is concise and clear. There are no errors and it is well organized.

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?

Images and media evaluation

No images present.

For New Articles Only

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?
• 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?

New Article Evaluation

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?

Overall evaluation

Overall, the article is on the right track. I like the structure that is present and the use of information examples. A very solid article.

Peer review by Niangao

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) Moonstar
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?yes
• 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
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?concise
• Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
• Is the content added up-to-date?yes
• 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?no

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?no
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?no
• 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
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?yes
• Are the sources current?yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?yes
• 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?concise and easy to read
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?no
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?yes

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?no
• Are images well-captioned?no
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?no
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?no

For New Articles Only

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?yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?yes
• 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?yes

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

I think this article developed its theme pretty well. The only suggestion would be to add some pictures to it.

Review (Leadership team)

Hi MaryJane404, you have a great draft so far and I personally learned a lot from your article. I'm glad you already used 20+ sources in your article and many hyperlinks to guide your readers. Also, I think you have a pretty good structure. I really like the section where you discuss the methods, which provides really detailed information. In general, I think you have a pretty nice draft. Here are some specific suggestions:

• One suggestion is to use in-text citation in your article. I noticed you have some paragraphs that do not have any citations. For example, the second paragraph in the introduction section. Also, you could consider to use more sources to support your introductory paragraph as people are expecting the beginning brief overview to be well-supported by the sources.
• I think you mean "rather than" in the sentence "but is typically driven by affordance rather then a desire for social "
• "activities" in the sentence "Internet Vigilantes use a variety of methods to conduct vigilante activitities."
• "committed" and "ensuring" in "bloggers who commited themselves to insuring their social punishment and loss of employment"
• Another thing is the structure in your method section. You could have each method as a subsection under the "methods" section. Also, I noticed you list "Online shaming" at the beginning of "Online shaming The act of publicly shaming other internet users online." If you don't want that term used as a subsection title, then you probably want to put the term in the sentence instead of listing it at the beginning.

In general, I think you have a really great draft with clear structure and detailed information. Good job!