User:Cheersmate510/Privacy seal/ColdRainyDay45 Peer Review

Peer review Draft #1
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) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

Lead
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? 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 concise and provides a great introduction to the subject matter.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is clearly indicated where more content is going to be added. Everything added thus far is very informative.

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? There are several great sources used.
 * Are the sources current? 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? 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, I think it might be interesting to look into GDPR's influence on privacy seals.

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

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, great sources are used.
 * 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 content of the article is well-written and very informative. I like how there is a specific section for privacy concerns.
 * How can the content added be improved? It might be interesting to add some more specific events/examples.

Peer Review Draft #2
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) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

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, the lead breaks down the main ideas that are found in the rest of the article well.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is the perfect length and has the right amount of information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic and the examples provided enhance the reader's understanding.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything included is very thorough, and all of the content is relevant.

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, everything included informs the reader about the subject matter.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * "Because privacy is a major concern for customers, they will purchase from websites they feel secure using. This relation between a consumer's perception of a company's website and their intention to purchase is the cornerstone of privacy seals." -- I would maybe add a citation after this sentence.
 * There are many reliable sources that are used and cited throughout this article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, a plethora of sources and studies are cited and cover all aspects of the topic well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links provided work. Some of the same sources have different citation numbers; for example, source 47 and 48 are the same, but I think this should be fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well-written and clear. It is evident that thorough research was completed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no significant grammatical or spelling errors. The draft is extremely polished.
 * Phrases like et al., e.g., i.e. should be italicized
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is broken down into sections that categorize the information presented well. Subsections may also help break up some of the longer sections.

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

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, great list of sources.
 * 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, all patterns are followed.
 * 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, more examples have been added throughout and the international applications section has been developed more.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There is an abundance of great sources/research incorporated throughout, and this really makes a great article.
 * How can the content added be improved? It might be nice to break up some of the larger sections into subsections.
 * Really great job! I enjoyed reading your article a lot!

Peer Review Draft #3
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) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

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, the lead provides a good overview of the subject.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and informative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic and the examples provided enhance the reader's understanding.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Everything included is very thorough, and all of the content is relevant.

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, I believe that all of the citations are appropriately placed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, several sources are used covering the various topics in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * 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?
 * "Privacy seals serve as an assurance to consumers that a company is taking measures to protect their privacy and data." maybe rephrase beginning "Privacy seals assure customers that.."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not notice any such error.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I like the addition of subsections, like "Effectiveness" under the "Uses" section, and "Controversies" under the "Privacy" section.
 * I think that more content could be added to the "Controversies" section to balance it with the rest of the privacy section.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the visual helps the reader understand what the seals can look like.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, but I think adding more descriptive information in the caption can help with understanding the seals.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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, the article is organized, and several sources are used throughout.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I really liked the images that you chose to add. I thought it was a great visual. The information is very thorough and presents multiple perspectives.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Great job! I loved the additions that were made this week. It might be nice to further break down the "Privacy" section so that "Controversies" is balanced with the rest of the content.

Peer Review Draft #4:
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) Cheersmate510
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Privacy Seal

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?
 * The lead provides a good overview.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything found in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all additions are relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Maybe you could add some "Main article" links at the top of sections.

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?
 * If there is more information/current event examples that can be added into the "Controversies" section that can help balance that section out. Otherwise, maybe you could breakdown the "Privacy concerns" section into more subsections and incorporate the controversies information in those sections.
 * 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! I would maybe consider adding a citation here:
 * "Websites without seals are not necessarily more risky. This is because privacy seals are a product companies must opt-into, they are not automatically given to any websites that meet certain requirements. Privacy seals do not mitigate risk, they are a safety heuristic."
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, it is evident that great, thorough research has been done. Great job!
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are from the 2000s.
 * 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, I really like the tone you maintain throughout.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any.
 * 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? Yes, the images help the reader match a visual to the descriptions throughout.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, I like the updated captions!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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?
 * I really like your explanations throughout and how you incorporated information from articles.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really like how you add new content each week. You did a really nice job breaking down the topic and representing many perspectives.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Really great job with your article! I liked seeing you improve it week by week! Thank you for giving me feedback each week on my drafts. Super excited for this to go into the main space!