User:IntheHeartofTexas/sandbox

Information Privacy
Information Privacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. However, I think the article could be improved by adding another section for the United States Safe Harbor program. The topic section would be beneficial.

The update on the United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues is from 2008, so it is out of date.

I did not see any readily apparent misrepresentation of individuals.

I think that the Authorities section could be moved to the end, to help the article flow better.

The article is neutral and no viewpoints are dominant.

The citation links do work and they do support the article.

Many of the sources come from the Government and large media outlets. This may be a bit biased and this is not noted.

I think the conversation of the topic must be to present the content as neutral as possible.

It is a part of the Wikimedia Commons project, The WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Computing The article is rated C-class.

Wikipedia aims to be objective and neutral in presenting information. IntheHeartofTexas (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas
Internet censorship and surveillance in the Americas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_and_surveillance_in_the_Americas Everything in the article is relevant to the topic.

The last update was from around 2015, so I believe that it could be updated.

I did not see any readily apparent misrepresentation of individuals.

The article is neutral and no viewpoints are dominant.

The citation links do work and they do support the article.

Many of the sources come from the Government and media outlets.

I think the conversation of the topic must be to present the content as neutral as possible.

It is a part of the WikiProject Internet, WikiProject North America, and WikiProject South America. The article is rated C-class.

Wikipedia aims to be objective and neutral in presenting information. IntheHeartofTexas (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Indiscriminate Monitoring Draft
User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring

Indiscriminate monitoring is a form of monitoring, such as email monitoring or telephone tapping,  that may interfere with an individual or group of individuals right to privacy. Organizations that conduct indiscriminate monitoring may use surveillance technologies to collect large amounts of data that could violate privacy laws or regulations. These practices could impact individuals emotionally, mentally, and globally. The government has also issued various protections to protect against Indiscriminate monitoring.

Surveillance methods
Indiscriminate monitoring could occur through email monitoring, social networking, targeted advertising, and physical monitoring. Email monitoring involves the employer monitoring employee emails. In most jurisdictions employers are permitted to use email monitoring to protect the company's assets, increase productivity, or protect themselves from liability.

Monitoring of social media activity can capture the data individuals share via these networks. Social networks may allow third-parties to obtain the personal information of individuals through terms-of-agreements.

Targeted advertising is a method used by companies to monitor customer tastes and preferences in order to create personalized advertising. Companies conduct mass surveillance by monitoring user activity and IP activity.

Physical monitoring can be conducted through smart toys, home surveillance systems, fitness watches or applications.

Government protections
In 2007, the Bush Administration announced that the would issue warrants for the NSA conducting surveillance of citizens without warrants. This announcement provided further protection against Indiscriminate monitoring because it prevented individuals from being monitored without just cause.

FISA amendments were passed to promote national security and privacy. These amendments require the NSA to complete certification annually. Furthermore, these amendments state that the use of mass surveillance information for any reason other than national security is prohibited.

United States Harbor System (Working...)

The effects of indiscriminate monitoring
There may be emotional and mental considerations in regards to indiscriminate monitoring. When individuals know they are monitored, it could produce stress, frustration, and a negative attitude. Individuals could feel degraded if their privacy is infringed on. For example, in the workplace employee monitoring if employees know that their emails and such were being monitored, this could stir up distrust within the workplace and increase job dissatisfaction.

Indiscriminate Monitoring Draft
User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring

Indiscriminate monitoring is the mass monitoring of individuals or groups without the careful judgement of wrong-doing. This form of monitoring could be done by government agencies, employers, and retailers. Indiscriminate monitoring uses tools such as email monitoring or telephone tapping, geo-locations, health monitoring to monitor private lives. Organizations that conduct indiscriminate monitoring may also use surveillance technologies to collect large amounts of data that could violate privacy laws or regulations. These practices could impact individuals emotionally, mentally, and globally. The government has also issued various protections to protect against Indiscriminate monitoring.

Surveillance methods
Indiscriminate monitoring could occur through electronic employee monitoring, social networking, targeted advertising, and geological health monitoring. All of these tools are used to monitor individuals without the direct knowledge of the individual.

Electronic Employee monitoring is the use of electronic devices to collect data to monitor an employee's performance or general being. The indiscriminate justification for monitoring includes, but is not limited to:


 * 1) The productivity of the employees.
 * 2) Legal liability of the company.
 * 3) Prevention of company confidentiality.
 * 4) Prevention of company data breaches.
 * 5) Prevention of workplace policy deviance.

Electronic Employee monitoring uses many tools to monitor employees. One of the most common tools of Electronic Employee monitoring is the use of monitoring technology Email monitoring involves the employers using employee monitoring software to collect data on every single time an employee comes in contact with technology in the workplace. The software will also monitor all passwords, websites, social media, email, screenshoots, and other computer actions. In most jurisdictions employers are permitted to use monitoring to protect the company's assets, increase productivity, or protect themselves from liability. However, the impact on privacy could affect employee contentment and well being at the company.

Social Media Monitoring is the use of social media measurement and other technologies to capture the data individuals share via these networks. Social networks may allow third-parties to obtain the personal information of individuals through terms-of-agreements. In addition to social media networks collecting information for analytics, government agencies also use social media monitoring for public issues and other manners. The government uses the often public data of social media to conduct data collection on individuals or groups of people.

Targeted advertising is a method used by companies to monitor customer tastes and preferences in order to create personalized advertising. Companies conduct mass surveillance by monitoring user activity and IP activity. Many companies justify targeted advertising by the social and economic implications. However, the indiscriminate privacy violations of producing targeted advertisements, cause consumers to have great concerns.

Geological health monitoring is the monitoring of an individuals's location and/or health through tools to collect personal information. Geological health monitoring can be conducted through smart toys, home surveillance systems, fitness watches or applications. Technological devices such as, fitness watches could serve as a great tool. However, they do have privacy implications that could risk health data exposure.

Privacy in the U.S. Constitution
The right to privacy in the constitution is most explicitly mentioned in Amendment I, Amendment III, and Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution. The privacy of belief, privacy of home, and privacy of the person and possessions is included in the U.S. Constitution.

Government protections
In 2007, the Bush Administration announced that the would issue warrants for the NSA conducting surveillance of citizens without warrants. This announcement provided further protection against Indiscriminate monitoring because it prevented individuals from being monitored without just cause.

FISA amendments were passed to promote national security and privacy. These amendments require the NSA to complete certification annually. Furthermore, these amendments state that the use of mass surveillance information for any reason other than national security is prohibited.

In 2020, Proposition 24, the Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act Initiative, appeared as a California ballot proposition. This act states that consumers can prevent companies from sharing their personal information. Also, this act can prevent companies from withholding the personal information of individuals through data collection for a long period of time.

The Controversies of Indiscriminate Monitoring
There may be emotional and mental considerations in regards to indiscriminate monitoring. When individuals know they are monitored, it could produce stress, frustration, and a negative attitude. Individuals could feel degraded if their privacy is infringed on. For example, in the workplace employee monitoring if employees know that their emails and such were being monitored, this could stir up distrust within the workplace and increase job dissatisfaction.

Research
Recently, researchers have been discussing the implications of indiscriminate monitoring, the public space, and the government's role. One argument states that the indiscriminate monitoring of the government inflicts on the right to privacy and results in harm to citizens.

Recent Cases of Indiscriminate Monitoring
(In progress...)

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi IntheHeartofTexas! Overall, great job on your article and it was really interesting to read about indiscriminate monitoring! Here are some feedback for your article as you polish up your final draft:


 * Continue adding citations and make sure to cite all 20 articles you have annotated in your annotated bibliography
 * Be more specific in the lead section what exactly indiscriminate monitoring is. It seems like you touch upon it a bit, but you could add a statement about what makes indiscriminate monitoring special.

Good luck and looking forward to seeing your final article draft!

Peer Review Sauceboss12
General info
 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/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?

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added, the lead is also concise while still covering all the major sections of this article. The lead does not contain any information that is not present in the draft

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 did seem relevant to the topic, and the content added seemed up to date. There is content missing where it is directly stated that that section is in progress. I think this article could potentially deal with one of wikipedia’s equity gaps however this article does not cover any of them.

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 articles content seems to be neutral not appearing to have any large bias towards a particular position. This is done well by covering how this issue affects both the employer and the employee. This article does not try to persuade the reader.

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 new content is backed up by a reliable source. The sources are thorough spanning both sides of the argument of indiscriminate monitoring. Sources are current. The sources are lacking in diversity because there are only a small amount. The links work.

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 a bit choppy the sentences seem to be pretty disconnected from one anther making it hard to read. Another thing that made it hard to read was that it was hard to understand what was an old and new draft and what subsections pertained to your document. This was more an issue with your sandbox then anything.

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 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? Yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? No while it is representing a lot of the literature it is a small selection of sources
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes but not a lot this could be improved

New Article Evaluation There is no sources or links to other Wikipedia

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?

The overall content of this article is half complete as there is a lack of citation and subsections which are being worked on. By adding in these parts you should be able to improve your article. The strength of this article is how you broke up the information.

copy edit
Indiscriminate Monitoring Draft

User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring

Indiscriminate monitoring is a form of monitoring, such as email monitoring or telephone tapping, that may interfere with an individual or group of individuals right to privacy. Organizations that conduct indiscriminate monitoring may use surveillance technologies to collect large amounts of data that could violate privacy laws or regulations. These practices could impact individuals emotionally, mentally, and globally.[1] The government has also issued various protections to protect against Indiscriminate monitoring. [2] Surveillance methods Indiscriminate monitoring can occur through email monitoring, social networking, targeted advertising, and physical monitoring. Email monitoring involves the employer monitoring employee emails. In most jurisdictions employers are permitted to use email monitoring to protect the company's assets, increase productivity, or protect themselves from liability.[3]

Monitoring of social media (through internet traffic? I would add how they do this ) activity can capture the data individuals share via these networks. Social networks may allow third-parties to obtain the personal information of individuals through terms-of-agreements.[4] Targeted advertising is a method used by companies to monitor customer preferences to create personalized advertising. Companies conduct mass surveillance by monitoring user activity and IP activity.[4] Physical monitoring can be conducted through smart toys, home surveillance systems, fitness watches or applications.[5] Recent Cases of Indiscriminate Monitoring (In progress...) The Controversies of Indiscriminate Monitoring There may be emotional and mental considerations in regard to indiscriminate monitoring. When individuals know they are monitored, it could produce stress, frustration, and a negative attitude. [citation needed] Individuals could feel degraded if their privacy is infringed on. For example, in the workplace employee monitoring if employees know that their emails and such were being monitored, this could stir up distrust within the workplace and increase job dissatisfaction.[3] Privacy Elements of the Constitution (In progress...) Government protections In 2007, the Bush Administration announced that they would start issuing warrants for the NSA conducting surveillance of citizens. This announcement provided further protection against Indiscriminate monitoring because it prevented individuals from being monitored without just cause.[2] Additionally, FISA amendments were passed to promote national security and privacy. These amendments require the NSA to complete annually certification. Furthermore, these amendments state that the use of mass surveillance information for any reason other than national security is prohibited.[2]

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring

Lead[edit]
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[edit]
The lead section is concise and clear, however, I feel it is a bit generic for your topic. It seemed to describe monitoring, but didn't touch on indiscriminate monitoring specifically.

Content[edit]
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[edit]
The article's content is relevant and appears to be up to date. I think the article is missing information that would differentiate indiscriminate monitoring from generic monitoring. It mentions a little bit about indiscriminate in the government protections section, but it would be good to go further.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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[edit]
The content is presented in a neutral manner. The issues with indiscriminate monitoring are over represented. The effects section only deals with negatives associated with indiscriminate monitoring. Adding something in about why people choose to use indiscriminate monitoring could help balance the article. Another option is to change the title of the effects section to something like "controversies" so it is clear that you are only going to present information on the problems with indiscriminate monitoring.

Sources and References[edit]
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[edit]
The information is backed up by reliable sources that appear to reflect available literature on the topic. The sources are current and the links work. However, there should be more sources included in the article. Right now, it appears there are only five sources used, and while everything was cited, it seems you could rely less on the few sources currently included.

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[edit]
The article is well written and contains very few errors. A few things could be tweaked to improve the flow of the article, but these edits are mostly stylistic. The content is well-organized.

Images and Media[edit]
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[edit]
No images were included

For New Articles Only[edit]
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[edit]
The article meets the notability requirements, but does not yet include an exhaustive list of sources. It links to other articles especially in the lead section. I believe the article follows the pattern of similar articles.

Overall impressions[edit]
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[edit]
The article is off to a good start, but needs to be expanded. The article's current strength is its readability. The information was clearly presented, which was great. The article can be improved by being expanded to include more information on the topic specifically information that differentiates this entry from the entry on monitoring.

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

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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? overly detailed

Lead evaluation: The lead being told like an essay so it is not being concise. It gives an overview of what will be said.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation There is little to no content.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation: There is not much tone in the comment as it is just headings.

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 is no source or refrences

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation There is no content

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

Images and media evaluation There is no images or media

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? N/A
 * 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?N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation There is no sources or links to other Wikipedia

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation It was an incomplete draft, so it is hard to evaluate any content or source.

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

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: IntheHeartofTexas

Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:

The lead is clear and concise, include a brief description on the topic


 * 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?

Content[edit]
Guiding questions:

The content is relevant to the topic, and most reference are up to date


 * 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?

Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:

The content added is neutral with no biased towards a particular side, mostly neutral tone, and not persuading readers.


 * 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?

Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:

Not all content are backed up by sources, however most source are current.


 * 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?

Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:

The article is clear and easy to read


 * 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?

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

No image added


 * 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?

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? So far there is only one source
 * 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? No

This article has a lot of references which shows the reliability of the article, and the overall look is pretty wikipedia-like.

Overall impressions[edit]
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?

The article can be more careful with the reference section, it seems like some are not backed by sources.

Peer Review Mary Jane 404
General info
 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * 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.

There should be no first person.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation It seems that the content is just an outline.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation: n/a

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 is no source or refrences

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation There is no content

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

Images and media evaluation There is no images or media

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? N/A
 * 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?N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation There is no sources or links to other Wikipedia

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

It was only an outline so these things couldn't be assessed yet.

Indiscriminate Monitoring
By creating this article, I hope to add valuable information about how we are monitored everyday. I want to emphasize the different methods our privacy is infringed on everyday through monitoring. This article will provide historical context about indiscriminate monitoring, its practices, and the affects of privacy infringement in regards to government and users.


 * 1) Definition of Indiscriminate Monitoring
 * 2) Historical context of Indiscriminate Monitoring
 * 3) Types of Indiscriminate Monitoring
 * 4) Ways Indiscriminate Monitoring is practiced
 * 5) The Privacy Rights Indiscriminate Monitoring violates
 * 6) Government Laws regarding  Indiscriminate Monitoring

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/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? No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead includes several introductory sentences, but they are neither concise nor clear. The lead also includes a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No
 * 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
There is very limited content.

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
There is very limited content so the tone of the article is not clear yet.

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 source or references yet.

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? No

Organization evaluation
There is very limited content.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
There is no images or media.

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? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

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
The article is still a outline instead of a complete draft so it's hard to evaluate the article now. If the new article has the content listed in the outline, it would definitely make the original article more complete.

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? IntheHeartofTexas
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:IntheHeartofTexas/Indiscriminate monitoring (There seems to be no draft in the 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 has been updated to reflect new content. The first sentence could probably give out a definition of indiscriminate monitoring. Lead describes different sections of the article. It does not include information that is not presented in the article. I would consider this as a concise lead.

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 are relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The article does not deal with equity gaps or 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 added are neutral and does not seem to be biased towards one side.

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
Most of the new content are backed up with sources. Sources are current and from different authors. Links that I checked could work.

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
Content added is generally easy to read. The section Surveillance Methods could probably be broken into smaller sections using headings based on different methods.

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 image has been 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?
 * 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 is supported by several sources, but there could be more sources that represent different perspectives of this topic. It has a similar pattern as other article. There could also be more 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 definitely introduces the topic of indiscriminate monitoring. Content added are easy to understand. The article could probably talk more about effects of indiscriminate monitoring, such as more researches about its effect on mental health and how government/organizations could make use of the information they collect.

Peer review - Sfwarriors99
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

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

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 a few broken links than need to be fixed.

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

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. I like the structure that is present and the use of information examples. A very solid article.