User:Panacotta101/Web browsing history/Quackdon Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Panacotta101
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Panacotta101/sandbox#Web Browsing History Draft 2

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 has been updated to reflect new content added by my peer and the introductory sentence clearly reflects the article's topic. The lead includes a brief introduction of the article's major sections, but perhaps can be more precise and does not include information that's not present. For example, you may list the various activities of what web browsing can do. Generally speaking, the lead is concise and clear.

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 added is relevant to the topic as it discusses the functions and concerns of web-browsing history. The content added is up to date and there aren't observable missing or content that does not belong. The article doesn't deal with equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. I also appreciate the idea of including an example of how targeted advertising is carried out.

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 added is neutral and there aren't observable aspect of bias. I feel that the viewpoint regarding privacy issue may be expanded by further discussing the intersection between cookies and privacy, perhaps providing an overview of how cookies work. The content doesn't persuade the reader in favour of one position, it is holistic and informative.

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

Yes, all content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information and they have been cited throughout the article. The sources reflect the literature on the topic and they are current, averaging of a publication date of 2018. They are written by different authors and doesn't include historically marginalised individuals.

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 conteent is well written. I think that the short sentences use enhances the concision and clarity. However, there is one observable grammar mistake in the lead.

"Meanwhile, it also causes privacy concerns that make users to take protection measures." - the 'to' can be removed, so it reads "Meanwhile, it also causes privacy concerns that make users take protection measures".

The content added is well -organised and are broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

Images and media evaluation

No images 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?

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 content added improved the overall quality of the article, particularly in the concision aspect, which is the strength. I feel that the content can be improved by adding a real life example about the intersection between privacy concerns and web browsing history. Are there any privacy related scandals associated with web browsing history?