User:Exploredragon/sandbox

Draft of assigned article (Evercookie)
Evercookie (also known as supercookie ) is a JavaScipt API that identifies and reproduces intentionally deleted cookies on the clients' browser storage. Websites adopted this mechanism can identify users even they attempt to delete the previously-stored cookies. It was created by Samy Kamkar in 2010 to demonstrate the possible infiltration from the websites that use respawning.

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked a top-secret NSA document, citing evercookie is used to track Tor (anonymity networks) users. In addition, many popular companies use evercookie mechanism to collect user information. Research on search engines also draws inspiration on evercookie's persistency.

Background
There are three commonly used data storages, including HTTP cookies, flash cookies, HTML5 Storage, and others. When the user visits a website for the first time, the web server will generate a unique identifier and store it on the user's browser or local space. The website can read and identify the user in its future visits with the stored identifier, and the website can save user's preference and display marketing advertisements. Due to privacy concerns, all major browsers include mechanisms for deleting and/or refusing cookies from websites.

In response to the users' increased unwillingness to accept cookies, many websites employ methods to circumvent users' deletion of cookies. Started from 2009, many research teams found popular websites used flash cookies, ETags, and various other data storage to rebuild the deleted cookies by users, including hulu.com, foxnews.com, spotify.com, etc. In 2010, Samy Kamkar, a Californian programmer, build an Evercookie project to further illustrate the tracking mechanism with respawning across various storage mechanisms on browsers.

Description
Samy Kamkar released v0.4 beta of the evercookie on September 13, 2010, as an open source. This evercookie javascript does not limit to respawning deleted HTTP cookies, but for any storage on browsers. When a browser visits a website with evercookie API on its server, the web server would generate an identifier and store it on various storage mechanisms available on that browser. If the user removes some but not all stored identifiers on the browser and revisit the website, the web server retrieves the identifier from remaining stored capacities that the user fails to delete. Then the web server will copy and restore this identifier to the previously cleared storage capacities.

By abusing the various available storage mechanisms, evercookie creates persistent data identifiers, because users are not likely to clear all storing mechanisms. From the list provided by Samy Kamkar, 17 storage mechanisms could be used for the v0.4 beta evercookie when they are available on browsers:

Samy Kamkar claimed he did not intend to use this evercookie project to violate Internet user privacy or sell to any parties for commercial use. However, it serves as an inspiration for other commercial websites that later implement similar mechanims to restore user-deleted cookies. The evercookie project is an open source and everyone can access and examine it. The project incorporates HTML5 as one of the storage mechanism, which was released 6 months before the project and gained public attentions due to its added persistency. Kamkar wished his project could demonstrate how users' privacy can be infiltered by contemporary tracking tools.
 * Standard HTTP cookies
 * HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)
 * local shared objects (Flash cookies)
 * Silverlight Isolated Storage
 * Storing cookies in RGB values of auto-generated, force-cached PNGs using HTML5 Canvas tag to read pixels (cookies) back out
 * Storing cookies in Web history
 * Storing cookies in HTTP ETags
 * Storing cookies in Web cache
 * window.name caching
 * Internet Explorer userData storage
 * HTML5 Session Web storage
 * HTML5 Local Web storage
 * HTML5 Global Storage
 * HTML5 Web SQL Database via SQLite
 * HTML5 IndexedDB
 * Java JNLP PersistenceService
 * Java CVE-2013-0422 exploit

The storage mechasims incorporated in the evercookie project are constantly being updated, adding evercookie's persistency. With its inspiration, an increasing number of commercial websites used the idea of evercookie, and they add upon it by incorporating new storage vectors. In 2014, a research team at the Princeton University conducted a large scale study of three persistent tracking tools: evercookie, canvas fingerprinting, and cookie syncing. The team crawled and analyzed the top 100,000 Alexa websites, and it detects a new storage vector, IndexedDB, that is incorporated into evercookie mechanism and used by weibo.com. The team claimed this is the first detection of commercial use for indexedDB. Moreover, the team discovers cookie syncing is used in conjunction with evercookie. Cookie syncing allows data sharing between different storage mechnisms, facilitating evercookie's respawning process in different storage locations on users' browsers. The team also discovered instances of flash cookies respawning HTTP cookies, and HTTP cookies respawning the flash cookies on the commercial websites. Those two mechanims are different from the evercookie project in terms of the number of storage mechanisms employed, but they possess the same ideology. Among the sites that the research team crawled, 10 out of 200 websites used flash cookies to rebuild HTTP cookies. 9 of the observed sites belong to China, including sina.com.cn, weibo.com, hao123.com, sohu.com, ifeng.com, youku.com, 56.com, letv.com, and tudo.com). The other one website is yandex.ru, a top search engine in Russia.

Applications
A research team from the Slovak University of Technology proposed a mechanism for search engines to infer Internet users’ intended search words and produce personalized search results. Oftentimes the queries from Internet users contain multiple meanings and range across different fields. As a result, the displayed search results from the search engine contain a multitude of information, many of which are not related to the searcher. The authors proposed that searchers’ identity and user preference have a strong indication on the queries meaning and can greatly reduce the ambiguity of the search word. The research team built a metadata-based model to extract users’ information with evercookie, and they integrated this user interest model into the search engine to enhance personalization of the search result. The team was aware that traditional cookie can be easily deleted by experiment subjects thus lead to incomplete experiment data. The research team then utilized evercookie's persistency.

KISSMetrics Privacy Lawsuit
On Friday July 29, 2011, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley crawled the top 100 U.S. websites based upon QuantCast. The team found KISSmetrics, a third party website that provides marketing analytical tools, used HTTP cookies, Flash cookies, ETags, and some but not all storage mechanisms employed in Samy Kamkar's Evercookie project to respawn the user's deleted information. Other popular websites, such as hulu.com and spotify.com, employed KISSmetrics to respawn HTML5 and HTTP first party cookies. The research team claimed this was the first time that Etag was observed to be used in commercial settings.

On the same day of the report's publication, Hulu and Spotify announced their suspended use of KISSmetrics for further investigation. Two consumers sued KISSmetrics on Friday about its violation of user privacy. KISSMetrics revised its privacy policies during the weekend, indicating the company had fully respected customers' will if they chose not to be tracked. On August 4, 2011, KISSmetrics' CEO Hiten Shah denied KISSmetrics' implementation of evercookie and other tracking mechanisms mentioned in the report, and he claimed the company only used legitimate first party cookie trackers. On October 19, 2012, KISSmetrics agreed to pay over $500, 000 to settle the accusation and promised to refrain from using evercookie.

NSA Tor Tracking
In 2013, an internal National Security Agency (NSA)'s presentation was revealed by Edward Snowden, suggesting Evercookie's use in government surveillance to track Tor users. The TOR Blog responded to this leaked document in one post, assuring that TOR Browser Bundles and Tails operating system provide strong protections against evercookie.

Public attitudes towards data tracking
Evercookie, and many other emerged new technologies in persistent data tracking, is a response of Internet users' tendency of deleting cookie storage. Related research shows a gap between the expectations of the consumer and marketers. A Wall Street Journal showed 72% felt being offended when they see targeted advertisements while browsing the Internet. Another survery showed 66% of Americans felt negative about how marketers track their data to generate individualized information. In another survey, 52% of respondents would like to turn off behavioral advertising.

Peer Review (Lolabaylo)
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:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - the introductory sentence provides a short definition of evercookie that is succinct and clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - it briefly touches upon the mechanisms and background of evercookie and the Snowden incident, all of which are mentioned in this article's major sections.
 * 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 touches upon each major section listed in the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall, a really strong Lead that provides a succinct and comprehensive overview of evercookie!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up-to-date: all content is relevant and the article mainly discusses evercookie applications that began in the early 2010s.
 * 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? - Historically underrepresented populations are not explicitly addressed, but this is difficult to do so given the article subject. It does discuss how online users in general are susceptible to being surveillanced and having their data collected with evercookie, however.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is informative, clear, and well-detailed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes - there are no opinionated statements included.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. It equally discusses potential positive uses (can help produce personalized search results for users) and harmful uses (can pose a threat to users' privacy) of evercookie.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No - maintains a neutral, unbiased tone throughout.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone of is neutral and formal. The writing style seeks to inform rather than persuade.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes - all information has an in-text citation.
 * Are the sources thorough and current? - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes - many sources are all from reputable academic journals. However, some sources are from online news outlets or websites.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links I tried work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources look reputable, strong, and relevant.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes - content is easy to understand and succinct, but still maintains a formal tone.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammar or spelling errors found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - I think the organization and flow is very intuitive. I like how the first part of the article provides an overview of evercookies with the "Background" and "Description" sections, and then later in the article applications of evercookie and public attitudes towards it are discussed.

Organization evaluation
Overall, organization is intuitive and clear.

Images and Media
N/A - no images or media provided.

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 - there are a sufficient number of reliable, secondary resources to support this article, and the article addresses the topic of evercookie directly and in detail.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are 20 sources supporting this article. They do represent a wide variety of available literature on this subject; however, I noticed that some sources are from online news outlets or websites, which are not peer-reviewed 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? - Headings and organization are similar to other articles. Infoboxes and media are not provided; including these things could make the article a bit more engaging and comprehensive.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes - hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles are provided throughout.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, this original article provides detailed content on evercookie.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is thorough, neutral, and addresses positive and negative aspects of evercookie.
 * How can the content added be improved? Possibly adding media and infoboxes.

Overall evaluation
Overall, a great start to creating an original Wikipedia article. It seems super fleshed out and professional!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? 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? 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
I think the Lead can include a little more information on your major sections. Seems a little short, but it is very concise and provides a great description of what Evercookie is. Also cited different sources within the Lead which is great!

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. the topic is not relevant to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation
The content may be a little lacking. Maybe you can extend the section on how evercookies are used in the 17 mechanisms instead of just mentioning them. Just a suggestion tho.

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 tone is neutral and no opinionated words are used.

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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are very new and current as some are from 2020. Sources are also cited in many sentences. I checked a few of the links and they work,

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? Minor errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Here are some of my suggestions to word choice/ grammar:

 Lead: 

Paragraph 1: “the previously stored cookies” to “the previously-stored cookies”

Paragraph 2: “also draws inspiration” to “also draw inspiration”

 Background: 

Paragraph 1: “Due to concerns over privacy” to “Due to privacy concerns”, “include mechanism for” to “include mechanisms for”

Paragraph 2: “various others data storage” to “various other data storage”

 Description: 

Paragraph 1: “ the web server” to “the webserver”(appeared a few times in the article), “user remove some” to “user removes some”, “and revisit the website” to “and revisit the website”

 Application: 

Paragraph 1: “metadata based model” to “metadata-based model”

 Controversial Use 

Paragraph 1: “at University of California” to “at the University of California”, “used in commercial setting” to “used in a commercial setting”

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?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A 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? 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

New Article Evaluation
This is a great start as a new article. It seems like more information could be added since we have done 20 bibliography annotations. You can consider adding some more of them into your article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? N/A (new article)
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Helps readers understand overview and basics of Evercookies.
 * How can the content added be improved? More application description on how it is used, or research study done on it.

Overall evaluation
Great work so far! Completely starting a new Wikipedia page is challenging and you are doing amazing. Hope my suggestions help you with expanding your article.

Peer review (HanMiKC)
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? Exploredragon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Evercookie

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
For "even they attempt to delete the previously stored cookies" there should be an "if" in between "even" and "they". The lead is concise, but it doesn't describe the article's major sections briefly, such as the section on controversial use. It isn't overly-detailed, just probably needs more information added.

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 is relevant to the topic and up-to-date, and there doesn't seem to be anything that doesn't belong, but sometimes the language can seem too complex for someone to understand, especially someone who is just being introduced to the topic. Maybe a possible improvement would be, for example, defining what a cookie is in the first place. While I understand articles relating to cookies are linked in the last section, a sentence just introducing someone to what a cookie is could help with the overall understanding of the topic.

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
Everything is good so far and seems balanced, but one improvement could be discussing more ethical concerns with the evercookie. You discuss how it has been used controversially, but maybe summing up what lesson the reader should take out of that example would be good.

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
Links all seem good and seem to be working well!

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 organization makes sense, as well as the sections the article is divided into. Just make sure to include brief descriptions of these sections in the lead.

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 to evaluate.

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
Try and maybe incorporating the articles you link at the end throughout the article, just to make the information flow better and allow people who are unsure of a topic to research as they go versus all at the end.

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
Good job overall, just consider the improvements listed throughout this peer review.

Peer review (Nankingaszz)
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? Exploredragon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Evercookie

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 very clear and introduces the main topic of the article. It's brief and it contains information that major sections cover.

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 are all relevant to the article. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's 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 added is neutral and there is no persuasion towards a specific direction.

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
There are abundant citations and most of them are current (after 2010). There is a diverse spectrum of authors that the citations come from different authors. The links I checked all worked!

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 article is well-organized. And I really like the Background section because it provides an easy-to-read introduction about the relevant topics for the article. The content is organized in a logical way!

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 have images currently.

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
There are lots of citations, which is great! It includes not only information directly about your topic but also lots of relevant topics.

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
Your draft looks great! I really like how you bring in more related topics and add hyperlinks for them. There are also lots of citations which make your article reliable. One way to improve is to add in more images and expand a little bit more on the Controversial Issue section, I feel like lots of examples can be covered in that part.

Peer review from Jamewang323
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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article has a strong lead section and an intro sentence.
 * 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? Yes, the lead section summarizes the topics of NSA, ever cookie, and the mechanism and applications of evercookie.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation
very concise lead section, but if you are adding new sections such as more applications of ever cookie, ethical. concerns of it, etc then consider editing the lead section.

Content
Guiding questions:

Good content so far, consider adding new contents as suggested above.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Pretty good sections so far, but consider expanding on key applications and give key examples such as Hulu and Facebook for example (how the websites/firms track users and obtain their cookie/private info). Also expand on the last sentence of NSA. Perhaps have another section on ethical concerns of evercookie.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, but it focuses on technical analysis and description of ever cookie and its uses.

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, but could expand on weaknesses of ever cookie and potential ethical concerns of discovering individual's cookies.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
Good job overall!, you can add more about ethical concerns of ever cookie.

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, good sources so far!
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, most sources are technical in nature, could consider using a few articles on how ever cookie affects marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Good references, add a couple more.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is clear and concise.
 * 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, however I think you can choose a few key applications rather than listing out a lot of storage mechanisms. Organization evaluation Good job overall, you could consider dividing topics into subtopics.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Consider adding images regarding the mechanisms of ever cookie and potential applications of it.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?NA

Images and media evaluation
Consider adding some images (maybe one image for lead section as well)

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 nice flow and contains good topics.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not within context, but a list at the end.

New Article Evaluation
Consider linking certain technical terms and jargons to other wiki pages. Maybe instead of doing a list at the end, integrate the links into your contents.

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 has some interesting applications and descriptions of ever cookie.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article has a neutral and technical tone, it's concise, and the article provides good applications of ever cookie. it also uses relevant and academic sources related to topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add a few more images/sources, consider adding the contents suggested in the content section of peer review.

Overall evaluation
This article was interesting to read! I especially like how you provided so many examples and applications of cookie storage/data storage. You can improve the article by adding more contents such as ethical concerns of extracting consumer data. Good job!

Peer review from lilmeowmeow3161

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? Yes (creation of new article)
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the article clearly defines what it is, in reference to the creator and the purpose.
 * 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? Yes, the lead includes the article on Zombie cookies, web browsers, the NSA and more
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? References are good! Extensive info
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Not really, more focused on privacy and security leaks than it is on underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the article remains neutral in tone
 * 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 think the article could use some more citations!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? 12 references is pretty substantial so far!
 * 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? The content is clear and easy to read, but includes a lot of technical jargon.
 * 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? In general, yes. The hacking section was a nice addition especially because it is so relevant to the NSA details found in the lead section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Includes a screenshot from the NSA presentation -- maybe explain relevance ?
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not sure?
 * 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? 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 the article goes from background --> description but does not include other sections beyond the hacking, but this is a new article so there is plenty to go off of!
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The article has applied a neutral tone, and it is informative and well-structured.
 * How can the content added be improved? The amount of sources cited might not be enough, add more sources~

Overall evaluation
Overall, this was an interesting article to read, and I like how your language was easy to read even if the subject matter was very technical. I would say add more context to your image (i'm not sure the reason it is there, but I as a reader am curious to know!) I liked the references your provided as they were extensive and applicable to the article.

Peer review from plusoneplusone
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.

Peer review (Brian)
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?
 * 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 clearly defines the term "Evercookie" and also explores real-life examples. However, it does not give an overview of the rest of the article.

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
Overall, the content contains up-to-date information and clearly describes the background and functionality of ever cookies.

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
Overall, the content is neutral and presents different viewpoints. Although most examples include negative connotations to ever cookies, I believe this is not wrong since the subject itself is controversial.

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
Overall, the article contains a plethora of sources from research articles. The sources are also fairly current and work fine.

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
Overall, the content is well-organized and there are no noticeable grammatical errors.

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
Currently, there are no images in the draft.

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
Overall, great draft so far! I would suggest you to add more sources and perhaps create a paragraph on how exactly ever cookies work (although some of it is in the description paragraph).

Lead
Your lead is concise and clear! Great job!

Copy-edits:

"Websites (add that) adopted this mechanism can identify users even (add when) they attempt to delete the previously-stored cookies." -- Also, move the citation after the period (as well as in your introductory sentence).

Content
The content is relevant and up-to-date (the most recent source is from 2018).

Tone and Balance
Your content is neutral, with no overly biased claims or over- or under- represented viewpoints.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by plenty of reliable secondary sources of information. The sources are current. You have cited a diversity of authors -- good job!

The second source link did not work for me and led to an error page. Otherwise, the other links I checked worked.

Organization
The content is well-written. It contains few grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized into clear and logical sections.

Copy-edits:

"Background" section:

Change "Started from" to "Starting in"; also you could change the websites links to something like "including the websites for Hulu, Fox News, and Spotify" and link the company names to their Wikipedia pages: "Started from 2009, many research teams found popular websites used flash cookies, ETags, and various other data storage to rebuild the deleted cookies by users, including hulu.com, foxnews.com, spotify.com, etc."

Change "build" to the past-tense verb form, "built": "In 2010, Samy Kamkar, a Californian programmer, build an Evercookie project to further illustrate the tracking mechanism with respawning across various storage mechanisms on browsers."

"Description" section:

"If the user removes some but not all stored identifiers on the browser and revisit (change to revisits) the website"

Delete "the" in "at the Princeton University"

Change "discovers" into "discovered that" in "Moreover, the team discovers cookie"

Misspelling of mechanisms in "Those two mechanims are"

Spell out the number 9 if you are starting a sentence: "9 of the observed sites belong to China, including sina.com.cn, weibo.com, hao123.com, sohu.com, ifeng.com, youku.com, 56.com, letv.com, and tudo.com)."

Delete "one" in "The other one website"

"Applications" section:

"The team was aware that traditional cookie (change to cookies) can be easily deleted by experiment subjects (add comma after subjects) thus lead (change to leading) to incomplete experiment data."

"Controversial use" section:

Not necessary to include "Friday" in "On Friday July 29, 2011,"

Add space after period in "cookie trackers.On October"

Delete space in "$500, 000"

Images and Media
N/A. Try to add some pictures to improve the visual presentation of the article.

For New Articles Only
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. Its sources are thorough. It has many links to other articles to make it more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Great job so far! You have written a very neutral-toned, clear and concise article. I assume you have some more sources, which means you will perhaps add more content. Keep doing what you've been doing, and you should be fine! Again, great job Exploredragon!

First draft of assigned article (Evercookie)
Evercookie (also known as supercookie or zombie cookies) is a JavaScipt code that identifies and reproduces intentionally deleted cookies on the clients' browser storage. Websites adopted this mechanism can identify users even they attempt to delete the previously stored cookies. It was created by Samy Kamkar in 2010 to demonstrate the possible infiltration from the websites that use respawning.

In 2013, Edward Snowden leaked a top-secret NSA document, citing evercookie is used to track Tor (anonymity networks) users. Many popular companies use evercookie mechanism to collect user information. Researches on fingerprinting and search engines also draw inspiration on evercookie's persistency.

Background
There are three commonly used data storages, including HTTP cookies, flash cookies, HTML5 Storage, and others. When the user visits a website for the first time, the web server will generate a unique identifier and store it on the user's browser or local space. The website can read and identify the user in its future visits with the stored identifier, and the website can save user's preference and display marketing advertisements. Due to concerns over privacy, all major browsers include mechanism for deleting and/or refusing cookies from websites.

In response to the users' increased unwillingness to accept cookies, many websites employ methods to circumvent users' deletion of cookies. Started from 2009, many research teams found popular websites used flash cookies, ETags, and various others data storage to rebuild the deleted HTTP cookies. In 2010, Samy Kamkar, a Californian programmer, build an Evercookie project to further illustrate the tracking mechanism with respawning across various storage mechanisms on browsers.

Adobe Systems claimed that the size restrictions, likelihood of eventual deletion, and simple textual nature of traditional cookies motivated it to add the local shared object (LSO) mechanism to the Adobe Flash Player. While Adobe has published a mechanism for deleting LSO cookies (which can store 100 KB of data per website, by default), it has met with some criticism from security and privacy experts. Since version 4, Firefox has treated LSO cookies the same way as traditional HTTP cookies, so they can be deleted together.

Description
Samy Kamkar released v0.4 beta of the Evercookie on September 13, 2010, as open source. This Evercookie javascript does not limit to respawning deleted HTTP cookies, but for any storage on browsers. When a browser visits a website with Evercookie API on its server, the web server would generate an identifier and store it on various storage mechanisms available on that browser. If the user remove some but not all stored identifiers on the browser and revisit the website, the web server retrieves the identifier from remaining stored capacities that the user fails to delete. Then the web server will copy and restore this identifier to the previously cleared storage capacities.

By abusing the various available storage mechanisms, Evercookie creates persistent data identifiers, because users are not likely to clear all storing mechanisms. From the list provided by Samy Kamkar, 17 storage mechanisms could be used for the v0.4 beta Evercookie when they are available on browsers:


 * Standard HTTP cookies
 * HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS)
 * local shared objects (Flash cookies)
 * Silverlight Isolated Storage
 * Storing cookies in RGB values of auto-generated, force-cached PNGs using HTML5 Canvas tag to read pixels (cookies) back out
 * Storing cookies in Web history
 * Storing cookies in HTTP ETags
 * Storing cookies in Web cache
 * window.name caching
 * Internet Explorer userData storage
 * HTML5 Session Web storage
 * HTML5 Local Web storage
 * HTML5 Global Storage
 * HTML5 Web SQL Database via SQLite
 * HTML5 IndexedDB
 * Java JNLP PersistenceService
 * Java CVE-2013-0422 exploit

Controversial use
In 2011, a research team crawled the website and claimed KISSmetrics, a third party website that provides marketing analytical tools, uses HTTP cookies, Flash cookies, ETags, and some but not all storage mechanisms employed in Samy Kamkar's Evercookie project to respawn the user's deleted information. KISSmetrics' CEO Hiten Shah first denied this accusation on the following week of the report's publication, and he claimed the company only used legitimate first party cookie trackers. The company was sued by two consumers for violation of consumer privacy policies. In 2012, KISSmetrics agreed to pay over $500, 000 to settle the accusation.

In 2013, an international National Security Agency (NSA)'s presentation was revealed by Edward Snowden, suggesting Evercookie's use in government surveillance to track Tor users.

Evaluate an article (Mandatory)

 * Name of article: Information privacy
 * This is an assigned reading from the lab.

Lead

 * This lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * This lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * This lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * This lead is very concise.

Content

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * There is no content that is missing or content that does not belong.
 * The article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral.
 * There is no claim that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * There is no viewpoint that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * All facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Not all links work.

Organization

 * The article is well-written.
 * The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * The article does not include images that enhance understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * There are comments on syntax, lead paragraph, sources, topic update, and tones.
 * This is rated as C-class, belongs to projects such as WikiProject computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject mass surveillance.
 * It breaks down the topic to information types and discusses the privacy issue.

Overall impressions

 * It is constantly improving and has comments left recently.
 * It covers many different areas within the topic.
 * It includes sections that address underrepresented groups with the problem of informational privacy.
 * It is well-developed.

Evaluate an article (Self-Selection)

 * Name of article: Computer security


 * This subfield of informational privacy is becoming increasingly important because of people's reliance on computer for transmitting and storing information.

Lead

 * This lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * This lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * This lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * This lead is very concise.

Content

 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * There is no content that is missing or content that does not belong.
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is neutral.
 * There is no claim that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * There is no viewpoint that are overrepresented, or underrepresented.
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References

 * All facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * The sources are thorough.
 * The sources are current.
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * All links work.

Organization

 * The article is well-written.
 * The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The article is well-organized.

Images and Media

 * The article includes images that enhance understanding of the topic.
 * Images are well captioned.
 * All images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Images are laid in a visually appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * There was a discussion and debate about whether to change the title of the article.
 * This is rated as C-class, belongs to projects such as WikiProject Internet.
 * Because this is a subtopic article, it provides more technical details on cyber security.

Overall impressions

 * It is constantly improving and has comments left recently.
 * It covers all related parties (hackers, regulators, and users).
 * It includes sections that address underrepresented groups with the problem of informational privacy.
 * It is well-developed.

Plan for Evercookie Editing
The lead is not concise enough and does not cover all information covered in the main article.

I will provide more textual information about Evercookie, traditional HTTP cookie, and LSO cookie. The current "background" section does not provide enough information about the relationship among those three cookies.

Some sentences in the current article has grammatical problems. I will also be aware of the syntax, diction, and tone while contributing to this article.

The current article uses a block of quote. I will see if it's possible to summarize the information in a more precise and succinct way.

The current leading section mentions this Evercookie was revealed to public by Edward Snowden, but this information is not covered in the main article. I will research on it and add this information.

I also want to add some additional sections, such as Evercookie's social influence, current regulations, details of invention history, etc.

The sources used in the current article are not up to date. Most of the sources used are also not from peer reviewed academic journals but from personal blogs and websites.

New notes for possible improvements
I will add a section of evercookie's creator's biography or a background introduction. Evercookie was created to raise awareness for data privacy rather than malicious use.

The current background section needs more information and be presented in a more logical categorized way. The current version is scattered and confusing.

There is also a lot of room to contribute to in the description section. The current version is a direct quotation from Samy Kamkar's website, which is intended to introduce evercookie to the general public and thus only introduces evercookie in a plain language. I would like to provide technical explanation on evercookie's mechanisms. Due to its complexity, here I may further divide this section into structure, implementation, attributes, cache, settings, and more.

I will also add sections on evercookie's real-world applications, including anti-fraudulent detection on hardware, data tracking for RTC, government surveillance, and enhanced personalized search engine. Each topic will become a separate section.

I may also introduces the related cookies as a separate section, including flash and LSO. Those two cookies' Wikipedia page do not contain sufficient information as well, so there are rooms for me to add more information.

With all those intended edits to the current article, the current lead section also needs modification to cover all those topics.

Links to other Wikipedia articles
Web tracking

Real-time bidding

Web browser

Internet privacy

HTML5

JavaScript

API

Cache (computing)

Browser security

Browser extension

Review (Leadership Team)
Hi Exploredragon, your article looks really nice and the information presented are pretty clear and I personally learned a lot about Evercookie. I notice you uses multiple hyperlinks in your article, which is pretty nice. Also, I think you already have some citations included, which is also great. One thing to notice is that you are expected to have 20+ citations throughout your article, so please remember to add another two articles. Another thing I notice is the "controversial use" section which looks pretty clear and shows that you are being objective about the topic. Here are some specific suggestions:


 * For the last two paragraphs, I think it would make your article more credible if you add some citations to the sentence. I noticed you only have one citation per paragraph, so make sure you cite every source when you use them
 * Also for the "application" section, the research described looks good. I don't know a lot about this research but please make sure this is a credible research in the field and if possible, add a few reviews from another research review articles to demonstrate that this research is worth mentioning/is a huge progress/very important in the field. Since it is in the application section, if this research has some practical use, it may also help to include that. Just to show the importance of why you think it is worthwhile mention in this wikipedia article.
 * For the "controversial use" section, I'm really glad you have this section which shows that this article is being really objective. I think the issues you mentioned in this section is beyond "use", so probably find a broader term to describe the section.

In general, I think this is a really nice draft where the description is really clear and people can learn a lot from your article. Though the topic is really technical, your explanation is still clear. Good luck on your final article and symposium!

Lead
The lead is very concise and mentions what it is, who created it, and how people use it. My suggestion would be to move the sentence talking about Samy the creator up to be the second sentence and move the websites adopting sentence to be the last sentence. I would also write out what API is first and put the abbreviation as (API) so that you can use the abbreviation for the rest of the article. This way, people understand what it is initially without having to look at the Wiki link.

copy edit: " application programming interface (API)"

copy edit: "Website who adopt this mechanism can identify users even after previously-stored cookies are deleted." (Also, be sure to move your citation in this sentence after the period.)

copy edit: second paragraph- "citing that evercookie was used to track...."

Content
For the background section, I think it would also be a good idea to think of it as a background/history section so the readers can see how the guy created it and how evercookie became to be. It would help the readers understand the process of how it was developed. If you can, adding some information on the guy Samy would be interesting, like how you brought him up under the description section. It might actually fit better for the section about the guy's motivation for creating Evercookie to go under the background section or a separate history section. Everything else seems to fit nicely into the article and can provide lots of great information to the readers!

copy edit: "The storage mechanisms incorporated...." (spelling error) description section last paragraph

copy edit: "between different storage mechanisms..." (Spelling error) description section last paragraph

Organization
I think the organization is a little off in terms of the "Background" and "Description" section. For the information under the "Background" section, I would think that would belong under the description section as you are explaining what it does and all the logistics. Background to me makes it sound like I'm going to read about how it was created/how it came to be or the history of it. Then it can go to the description section and explain all about the actual product Evercookie, what it does, etc. For example, the sentence "Samy Kamkar released v0.4 beta of the Evercookie on September 13, 2010, as open source." would be great in explaining the history of Evercookie as well as his motivation for creating it. So maybe just think about the heading and change it to correlate with the information you write or maybe move around your information to fit the headers.

Tone and Balance
The tone of the article is neutral, and I don't see any bias in the writing. The only comment I will make will make would be in terms of the "Description" section. There seems to be a lot of information under there in comparison to everything else, so maybe moving things around/making more headings can make it seem more balanced in terms of the size of the paragraph compared to the others. Other than that, no other problems!

Sources and References
You heavily reference your sources, which is good. The only paragraph that seems to be missing a citation is in the last paragraph of your description section that starts with "The storage mechanisms incorporated...." You insert a citation in the middle of it, but there is no citation for the second half of it. If that one citation is used for everything, either cite it twice or just move the citation to the end so that the readers know that all the information is coming from that one article. In that case, it might also be a good idea to find another article or source to back up your claims so that you are not solely relying on one view/source for so much information.

Images
If you are able to find more pictures than the one you have on the article right now that would be great!

New article
N/A- seems to be an existing one that is on the internet already.

Overall Impressions
Good work! You worked hard on this and are almost done! Good article, there are some easy fixes but also some bigger ones that you can decide whether it makes sense as the writer of the article. I think moving some information around and playing with different heading could help make your article flow better and make sure that the right information correlates with the right heading. Other than that, good job! ~