User:Exploredragon/Evercookie/Plusoneplusone Peer Review

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

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? This is a new article, so this question is not applicable.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the first sentence is a clear definition.
 * 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? The sentence "Many popular companies use evercookie mechanism to collect user information.  Researches on fingerprinting also draws inspiration on evercookie's persistency" might not be elaborated enough in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the content added are relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the sources come from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all of the content looks good.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The topic is related with a wide range of internet users whose privacy has been compromised by the application of evercookie.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I can see the author's incentive is to be informative instead of persuasive.
 * 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? I see many sentences with relevant statistics and concept without cited sources, this part might need some improvements.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I can see four sources, so I would suggest to add more references in order to include a wide range of literature. I know the topic is very technical and challenging, but try your best! : - )
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There are four sources now, I guess more could be added.
 * 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, the exciting content is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content rarely has spelling errors or grammar mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? In general, yes. The bibliography section is out of place, I would suggest to add it at the end of the article.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images so far.
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable.

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? More sources could be added.
 * 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, the article has a very clear structure.
 * 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? This is a new article. The structure of this article follows a natural and coherent order.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article has applied a neutral tone, and it is very information. The general structure is well-organized, and the information presented in the article is all relevant.
 * How can the content added be improved? The amount of sources cited might not be enough. A bibliography section might need to be moved to the correct place. The article might needs more citation in general.