Stellasuperba

Welcome!

Hello, Stellasuperba, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 8

Just finished peer-reviewing your article! Great work so far. 99rebound (talk)

Lead: Great lead section! It was concise and straight to the point, and it gave a great overview of what predatory advising is. I also liked how you cited from the very beginning in the lead section to give the readers more context if they need.

Content: The content you have was really informative, and the organization of the subtopics were great. I can tell you spent some time to figure out what to put where as your article so far is clear and easy to follow. Citations were also all up to date and accessible.

Images and media: N/A

Overall: Great job! There wasn't much to constructive criticize on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99rebound (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Stellasuperba

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stellasuperba/Predatory_advertising

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

N/A

Lead

Your lead is really good and gives a great overall summary of the topic. One thing I noticed was that you use the word "vulnerability" quite often in the lede. Unless that is a specific term relevant to the topic, maybe consider changing a few instances of it.

Content

Content is great! You did a really in-depth job of writing without any hint of bias and the information is relevant. Also, great job with including your sources.

Impression

There really is not much to critique. You've done an excellent job so far and the layout really fits the topic. Keep up the good work! CelticsFan3 (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 9

Lead

• Currently there is no lead to the article, although the first section "Predatory Advertising" looks like it has the content of a lead.
• The first section does outline the remaining sections of the article
• It includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
• It does not include information that's not in the article
• It is concise and not overly detailed

Content

• Content added is relevant to the topic
• Content is up to date

Tone and Balance

• Content is neutral
• No biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views
• No persuasion

Sources and References

• Sources are diverse and reliable
• I would suggest linking to more Wikipedia articles (hyperlinks)

Organization

• Article is well-organized and structured
• Very minor spelling or grammatical errors, copyediting stuff
  • persons --> person's under "Motivational vulnerability"
  • unfavorable transaction --> a unfavorable transaction or make plural under "social vulnerability"
  • individuals --> individual's, limits --> limit under "economic vulnerability."
  • that --> than under "omission."
  • law suit --> lawsuit under "for-profit colleges"
  • Small typo: "Congress" is lowercase near the end of the first paragraph under "Legislative measures."

Overall

Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article draft. The content was really interesting and the article was very well-written! Luckyclover44 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 9

Lead: (I’m assuming that the section under “predatory advertising” in serving as your lead section) Great lead section! I really understand the background of predatory advertising and you cover the important information that will be included in the article.

Content: The content was really informative and never confusing. I love how you gave an overview of each of the topics before going into greater detail in subheadings. Make sure to cite your sources wherever relevant.

Tone and Balance: The article was written in a neutral tone with no hints of bias in my opinion.

Sources: Sources were all up to date with several references that made the article information reliable.

Organization: The order of the headings makes a lot of sense and each section flows to the next. Additionally, the use of numbers to divide the information made it really easy to understand. Great work! Hotpink789! (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 10

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead might want to expand upon the information about the legality of predatory advertising. Maybe a sentence about whether or not these legal actions have been successful. 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? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Some parts of the lead could be cut down - removing either the bit about history or data analytic industries broadly. Content

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? I think the content is pretty neutral - many different perspectives are represented by the article. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think it would be helpful to explain how predatory advertising firms respond to legal measures to ensure that both sides are represented. Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? “It's important to note that the use of algorithms may result in such targeted advertisement despite being built without any malicious intent. Those utilizing Machine Learning will "train" themselves to display advertisements that result in user-engagement based on prior interactions, which may reinforce and increase the rate at which vulnerable populations receive advertisements that "speak" to those vulnerabilities” needs a cite. The Implication heading needs some cite. Overall the deception tactics heading could use more citations. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No OVERALL YOUR ARTICLE LOOKS GREAT! Penguinblueberry (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)penguinblueberry

Lead:

Super strong lead. The information here gives a clear and concise picture of what I am about to read. Even for the amount of detail in the lead section, I'd say the information is precise enough to warrant its size.

Content:

What I like about this content is it immediately starts by talking about equity gaps and vulnerable groups. Instead of stowing this section to the back of the article, where most articles do put a typical section like this, this article puts this at the forefront, pretty much flaunting its reason for existing, and I love it. Every subsection is meticulously woven to match with the core concept of how predatory advertising can be (it's actually a bit scary when Amazon and Google are able to figure out what I want to buy before I do). I like that there's both a very technical side and more literature based side in this article, with the algorithms and case examples, respectively. Everything content wise seems well balanced and makes sure to show as much data as possible to ensure the work represents the whole spectrum of information.

Tone and Balance:

As stated above, this article says everything that needs to be said, but it's also done in a way that nothing seems persuasive. The content is to show and explain, nothing more.

Sources and References:

Again, considering the sources we had to find, I'd say this article has strong sources to back it up. The links function properly and given the context, I'd say this article is built on a strong foundation of previous knowledge.

Organization:

In terms of organization, this article breaks the norm of putting vulnerable/affected groups at the beginning; I am a fan. Typically something like this is reserved for the end of a wikipedia article coming after all the build up of background knowledge and context. However, here, it serves to enhance someone's purpose for reading, as we are immediately introduced to the significance of the article. Besides that, the article follows a typical structure that makes sense, and it works well. No errors grammatically/spelling-wise that caught my eye.

Images and Media:

There are no images in this current iteration of the draft.

For New Articles Only:

The new article will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knowing the work the lab has to do, the sources will be extensive and exhaustive in the knowledge they provide. The abundance of knowledge this article divulges and usage of citations shows a strong foundation. There are cleverly used links to other wikipedia articles to get the word out that this new article exists and has meaning.

Overall Impressions:

What an article! Your content follows a very logical flow that doesn't inherently rely on technical terms to get by. It's an easy yet extensive read that is nothing but informative. The strengths I found are: structure, abundance of information, the content being shared concisely. Those stood out to me. In terms of improvement: I got nothing! Great article! LowIQPotato (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 11

Lead: Lead was concise and informative. I felt it gave a great high level overview of what the article will be about. Content: Content was great. I felt I learned a lot about predatory advertising. I especially liked the examples you included of which companies are relevant to this topic such as Google. I felt in this way, I was able to relate myself more to this article and topic.

Tone and Balance: There seems to be an unbiased tone with a great balance between commentary and concrete evidence.

Sources and References: All sources are up to date and are relevant to predatory advertising. Sources are unbiased as well.

Organization: Well organized, I thought the subtopics you chose were relevant and fit well with the preceding topics. The content was smooth to read as well.

Images and Media: N/A

Overall Impressions: Great article! I enjoyed reading it and felt it was easy to read and relate to. There was not much to critique on! 99rebound (talk) 99rebound

Peer Review Week 11

Lead

Your lead is excellent and gives a great summary of your topic and each main section.

Content

Everything seems perfect from your objectivity and clear sentence structure.

Impression

Great work! This is a high-level article, but you made it very easy to understand and included tons of sources. One suggestion is maybe to include an image. CelticsFan3 (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)