User:Imakespaghetti29/sandbox

Article Evaluation (Privacy in Education)

 * Name of article: Privacy in Education
 * I chose to evaluate this article on Privacy in Education because it closely relates to the topic of Privacy, which I am very interested in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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's introductory sentence very concisely and clearly describes the article's topic of Privacy in Education. Even though we see a clear list of the article's major sections, a brief description of these sections are missing in the Lead. It includes only relevant information and has no information that is not explored further in the article. However, it is overly concise and could use a little more detail to provide more context and serve as a better introduction.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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 article's content is very relevant to the over-arching topic of Privacy in Education. However, most of the citations are from the early 2010s, thus more up-to-date information might enrich the article. All of the content fits well into the article, however, something that is missing is the implications of education privacy concerns on individuals and society. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and is very neutral and straightforward. It does not address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, the article is very neutral and articulate. The article presents facts and published research rather than any arguments, thus does not appear heavily based toward a particular position. Any viewpoints are adequately presented in a balanced manner, and are neither overrepresented or underrepresented. Thus, the article's articulate and unbiased nature does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, and allows them to form their own opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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
Almost all the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources mentioned are very thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. However, the sources are not current; and almost all of them date back to the 2000s and early 2010s. Upon checking a section of the sources, I would say that the sources definitely represent a diverse spectrum of authors. When applicable, I could reasonably say that historically marginalized individuals when possible. The links in the article do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is very well organized and written; and is concise, clear and easy to read. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into very clear and useful sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Unfortunately, the article does not contain any images that enhance our understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations going on behind the scenes on Privacy in Education's talk page are very comprehensive and academic, and does not contain malicious or offensive content. The way Wikipedia discusses the topic in a much more detailed and descriptive manner than we talk about in class. I believe it also takes a much more neutral stance since our discussions in class are in someway influenced by our own experiences and opinions on Privacy in Education.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is very well developed and in good status. The article's strengths lie in its neutral and objective stance on the topic, which allows readers to form their own opinions on Privacy in Education. The article could use more relevant sources, since most sources date back to the 2000s and the early 2010s. The article is very well organized, but could use some more sections on topics like implications of Privacy in Education concerns on individuals and society, as a whole.

Article Evaluation (Information Privacy)

 * Name of article: Information Privacy
 * I chose to evaluate this article on Information Privacy because it closely relates to the topic of Privacy, which I am very interested in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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's introductory sentence very concisely and clearly describes the article's topic of Information Privacy. Even though we see a clear list of the article's major sections, a brief description of these sections are missing in the Lead. It includes only relevant information and has no information that is not explored further in the article. However, it is overly concise and could use a little more detail to provide more context and serve as a better introduction.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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 article's content is very relevant to the over-arching topic of Information Privacy. However, most of the citations are from the 2000s and early 2010s, thus more up-to-date information might enrich the article. All of the content fits well into the article, however, something that is missing is the implications of information privacy concerns on individuals and society. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, and is very neutral and straightforward. It does not address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Yes, the article is very neutral and articulate. The article presents facts and published research rather than any arguments, thus does not appear heavily based toward a particular position. Any viewpoints are adequately presented in a balanced manner, and are neither overrepresented or underrepresented. Thus, the article's articulate and unbiased nature does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, and allows them to form their own opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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
Almost all the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, except some portions of 'Protection of privacy in information systems' and 'Information Types'. The sources mentioned are very thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. However, the sources are not current; and almost all of them date back to the 2000s and early 2010s. Upon checking a section of the sources, I would say that the sources definitely represent a diverse spectrum of authors. When applicable, I could reasonably say that historically marginalized individuals when possible. The links in the article do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation[edit]
The article is very well organized and written; and is concise, clear and easy to read. I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into very clear and useful sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Unfortunately, the article does not contain any images that enhance our understanding of the topic.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The conversations going on behind the scenes on Information Privacy's talk page are very comprehensive and academic, and does not contain malicious or offensive content. The article has been C-class and of High Importance by several WikiProjects like WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass Surveillance. The way Wikipedia discusses the topic in a much more detailed and descriptive manner than we talk about in class. I believe it also takes a much more neutral stance since our discussions in class are in someway influenced by our own experiences and opinions on Information Privacy.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is very well developed and in good status. The article's strengths lie in its neutral and objective stance on the topic, which allows readers to form their own opinions on Information Privacy. The article could use more relevant sources, since most sources date back to the 2000s and the early 2010s. The article is very well organized, but could use some more sections on topics like implications of Information Privacy concerns on individuals and society, as a whole.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk Page

Peer Review - Quackdon
General info


 * Whose work are you reviewing? Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Imakespaghetti29/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 reflects the new content added by the peer, has an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the Lead doesn't include information about her headings.

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 relevant and is up to date. The article doesn't deal with equity gaps and doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

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
Content add is neutral and has no bias. Viewpoints aren't overrepresented or underrepresented.

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
They work and reflect literature on the topic. They sources are written by a diverse spectrum.

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
Well written and it is concise. There aren't observable grammar 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
No images.

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
I think content added improved the overall quality of the article by adding diverse topics. The examples used are great as well. However, the content can be improved by writing an introductory sentence of what the topic is about before jumping straight into the examples.

Peer review--Niangao
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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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 include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, and it include information is presented in the article, but it needs to further include a brief description of the articles's major sections. This lead is concise. Maybe expanding it a little more could make better understanding for readers.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
the content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It does not deal with one of 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. There is no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular positon or over/under represented. The content added is not attempting to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another

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 has not added any sources yet.

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 content added is well-written and has no grammatical or spelling errors. It is well-organized.

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.

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
the article does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements becuase there has not been added any link yet. The article does not link to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The overall status of the article is relatively solid as the lead is concise and the content is relevant to the topic. The article could be improved by including more reliable sources and further developing the lead.

Peer review - Bunnyshampoo
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)Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Imakespaghetti29/sandbox

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? No
 * 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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise. It does not have a brief description or introductory sentence of the article's major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is like an essay.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation: There is no citation for the content. The content is being told like a story or an essay. It doesn't have equity gap.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The wikipedia uses words such as "Let's and similarly"
 * 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: There is no bias, but it feels like a narrated tone for a story rather than facts about the content. The tone is not "encyclopedic."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? N/A
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?N/A
 * Are the sources current?N/A
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work?N/A

Sources and references evaluation: There are no sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No there is no explanation of context.
 * 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

There are topics but they don't inform about the subject. Seems like they are just explaining a concept inside the game.

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

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? No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation: There are no sources

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? gives examples
 * How can the content added be improved? Explain everything.

Overall evaluation: I think the content and lead can be more descriptive for those that do not fully understand the topic but wants to do research on this. There is no sources so it is hard to evaluate the information and check its validity.

Peer review – Sauceboss12
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) Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User: Imakespaghetti29/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?

While the lead is short it might be too short, not covering the article’s major sections and while it does describe the articles topic it does it indirectly. The lead contains information that is not present in the article in the form of the developers.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * 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?

Again, as Bunnyshampoo said in their peer review your article lacks citations. This makes it so that I cannot see if the content is added up to date. I think information is missing about the application of these ideas, cases are presented and left in a vacuum. Maybe show how they where or could be applied in the real world.

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?

The article does not seem to have any bias content and is neutral. However this seems to be due to the information not being presented rather than correct representation.

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?

There are no sources

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?

While the content and the content are easy to real have no grammatical spelling errors that I could pick up, because of the use of an introduction part it did not flow logically. Maybe recognizing you’re the sections as methods, cases and application would allow for a clearer flow.

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?

NA

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?

Article does not meet the Notability requirements, as it has no sources.

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?

I think the main way in which this article can be improved is by adding sources, adding examples of real-world examples of each case, rebranding of the section (ex. Getting rid of the introduction) and expanding the lead section. The strengths of the article seem to be the description of the different problems

Peer review- Mary Jane404

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User: Imakespaghetti29/sandbox

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?no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? needs more

The leas is too short and needs to explain the article more.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?n/a
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? more elaboration
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?no

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 view points
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?no

no bias, the article doesn't read like an encyclopedic article.

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?

There are no sources

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?no
 * 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.

Hard to assess because no outside context is given for the info.

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?

NA

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?no
 * 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?

The article does not meet the Notability requirements, as it has no sources.

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? Uses examples
 * How can the content added be improved?

The article needs to be written like an encyclopedic article as in mainly for information. You need do describe what you are talking about.

Peer review - Moonstar0619
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) Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Imakespaghetti29/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? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.

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

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to date.

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 content is neutral tone since there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. However, the tone of the article is narrative instead of descriptive.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No

Sources and references evaluation
There is no sources or references.

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

Organization evaluation
The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

Images and media evaluation
There is no image.

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? No
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No
 * 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? No
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

New Article Evaluation
There is no sources or links to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added does make the article more complete. However, the article needs to be more encyclopedic and citations need to be added to make the article more valid.

Copy Edit Mary Jane 404
= All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (First Draft) = The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets is a computationally secure scheme developed under cryptographic assumptions developed by Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, and Jean-Marc Robert.

The two-bit problem (2BP)
Let's consider a case involving two people, Alice and Bob, who are trying to share secrets with each other following a particular framework. Alice has two secrets (two secret bits), one of which she is ready to reveal to Bob. Bob can pick which one of these he wants to know, but cannot learn more than one bit of information (any function related to the bits) on Alice's bits. In case (if) Bob does not (doesn't) cheat(,) and obtains the physical bit of his choice, Alice doesn't get to know which one of her two secrets (bits) were revealed.

The all-or-nothing two-bit problem (AN2BP)
In a similar case, Alice has two secret bits and she is ready to disclose one of them to Bob, according to his choice. Bob cannot, in any way, obtain more than one physical secret bits(is bits always in plural form?). This is because the framework is set up in a way that as soon as he obtains information on one of the bits, he cannot gain any information on the other secret bit. As in the previous case, Alice does not know which one of her two secret bits were revealed to Bob.

The all-or-nothing n-bit problem (ANNBP)
This is very similar to the AN2BP problem. Only in this case, Alice has n secret bits instead of only 2. She will follow a similar framework as the previous case and disclose one of them to Bob according to Bob's choice.

The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (ANDOS)
Alice has a particular number of secrets; and as described above, she is willing to disclose one of them to Bob at his choosing. However, Bob is not allowed to gain information on more than one secret. Bob, on the other hand, does not want Alice to know what secret he is interested in. The framework is set up in a way that if Bob gains any information on any one of Alice's secrets, he will not be able to gain information on any of the other ones.

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi Imakespaghetti29! Overall, your article describes all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets in a really easy way, especially with the use of Alice and Bob as an example, it makes it easy for people with less technical background to gain a better sense of understanding. Here are some feedback as you polish up your article:


 * make sure to add citations! It is always better to add more than less to prevent getting flagged for plagiarism. Please also make sure to include all 20 articles that you have annotated into your Wikipedia article
 * I would suggest including a bit more in the lead section. What are some scenarios in which all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets are used? Why was it developed?

Overall great job and looking forward to reading your final article draft!

Copy Edit Sauceboss12
=Copy Edit Sauceboss12=

The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets is a computationally secure scheme developed under cryptographic assumptions developed by Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau , and Jean-Marc Robert. All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets have a multitude of different problems which they can be applied to.

== Introduction ==

=== The two-bit problem (2BP) ===

Let's consider a case involving two people, Alice and Bob, who are trying to share secrets with each other following a particular framework. Alice has two secrets (two secret bits), one of which she is ready to reveal to Bob. Bob can pick which one of these he wants to know, but cannot learn more than one bit of information (any function related to the bits) on Alice's bits. In case Bob does not cheat and obtains the physical bit of his choice; Alice does not get to know which one of her two secrets (bits) were revealed.

=== The all-or-nothing two-bit problem (AN2BP) ===

In a similar case, Alice has two secret bits and she is ready to disclose one of them to Bob, according to his choice. Bob cannot, in any way, obtain more than one physical secret bits. This is because the framework is set up in a way that as soon as he obtains information on one of the bits, he cannot gain any information on the other secret bit. As in the previous case, Alice does not know which one of her two secret bits were revealed to Bob.

=== The all-or-nothing n-bit problem (ANNBP) ===

This is very similar to the AN2BP problem. Only This case is the same as AN2BP except that  Alice has n secret bits instead of only 2. She will follow a similar framework as the previous case and disclose one of them to Bob according to Bob's choice.

=== The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (ANDOS) ===

Alice has a particular number of secrets; and as described above, she is willing to disclose one of them to Bob at his choosing. However, Bob is not allowed to gain information on more than one secret. Bob, on the other hand, does not want Alice to know what secret he is interested in. The framework is set up in a way that if Bob gains any information on any one of Alice's secrets, he will not be able to gain information on any of the other ones.

== Applications ==

New article: All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets
I am planning on writing an article on all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets and explore its privacy-related contexts. My plans for the article would be to start with a broad introduction on what the concept is all about in the lead, and then add sections about the mathematical proofs provided by various authors. I would also add sections about underlying theorems and models, and finish off with a section about practical applications of the concept. = All-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (First Draft) = The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets is a computationally secure scheme developed under cryptographic assumptions developed by Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, and Jean-Marc Robert.

The two-bit problem (2BP)
Let's consider a case involving two people, Alice and Bob, who are trying to share secrets with each other following a particular framework. Alice has two secrets (two secret bits), one of which she is ready to reveal to Bob. Bob can pick which one of these he wants to know, but cannot learn more than one bit of information (any function related to the bits) on Alice's bits. In case Bob does not cheat and obtains the physical bit of his choice; Alice does not get to know which one of her two secrets (bits) were revealed.

The all-or-nothing two-bit problem (AN2BP)
In a similar case, Alice has two secret bits and she is ready to disclose one of them to Bob, according to his choice. Bob cannot, in any way, obtain more than one physical secret bits. This is because the framework is set up in a way that as soon as he obtains information on one of the bits, he cannot gain any information on the other secret bit. As in the previous case, Alice does not know which one of her two secret bits were revealed to Bob.

The all-or-nothing n-bit problem (ANNBP)
This is very similar to the AN2BP problem. Only in this case, Alice has n secret bits instead of only 2. She will follow a similar framework as the previous case and disclose one of them to Bob according to Bob's choice.

The all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets (ANDOS)
Alice has a particular number of secrets; and as described above, she is willing to disclose one of them to Bob at his choosing. However, Bob is not allowed to gain information on more than one secret. Bob, on the other hand, does not want Alice to know what secret he is interested in. The framework is set up in a way that if Bob gains any information on any one of Alice's secrets, he will not be able to gain information on any of the other ones.

Peer review by Panacotta101
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) Imakespaghetti29
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Imakespaghetti29/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
Lead includes a sentence that introduces the topic. However, it does not introduce sections included in the article. Lead section is concise overall.

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 added is relevant to the topic. There could probably be more content, for example how all-or-nothing disclosure of secrets could impact privacy. The article does not deal with 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
Content added is neutral and not biased toward a particular position. Different viewpoints are presented. It does not attempt to persuade the readers.

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
The article has not included any source yet.

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 introduction section uses examples to make the article easier to read. It represents several stages of the problem. It is well-organized using sub-titles. However, the Lead section is slightly difficult to read. The content does not have any grammatical or spelling 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
The article has not included any media yet.

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
The article does not include any source and link. The pattern of this article is quite similar to other articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content added helps to explain the topic well. It could be improved by adding more sections such as impacts, applications, etc.

Peer Review - Sfwarriors99
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 concise and provides accurate information. The lead starts with a well written introductory sentence than builds upon the topic.

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 relevant and up to date. There are no 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 is neutral and no group is under or over represented.

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

The content is backed by reliable secondary sources of information. However, there are very few links present.

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 content is concise and clear. There are no errors and it is well organized.

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 present.

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

N/A

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, the article is on the right track, but I think it needs to reference more sources.