User:Midnightinterludes/Privacy settings/ColdRainyDay45 Peer Review

Peer review Draft #1
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Midnightinterludes
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Midnightinterludes/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, it clearly defines the term.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, Introduces the idea of companies and important terms like Privacy by Design, contributing factors, and applications.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good introduction to the topic.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, and I like how there are examples provided so that readers can better understand/relate to the information. I also found the section about External Contributors in Privacy Settings very interesting.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it might be interesting to look into privacy settings in other spaces like smart devices/smart home.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, I think it might be nice to break the users' role section into a few subsections.

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


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, great sources are used.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Everything is great, just the bullet points just need to be removed.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I like how the information is organized and how there is an "Enhancements" section.
 * How can the content added be improved? It might be interesting to look into the device space with smart devices/Apple Watch/Biometric Privacy Settings.

Peer review Draft #2
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the topic is clearly defined in the first sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything in the lead is relevant to the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, the lead is concise and provides a good introduction to the topic. I would maybe consider breaking it into two paragraphs.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I also like that in the Users' role section there is an "Updated Privacy Settings" section that mentions information specifically from this year (2020).
 * I also really liked the content addition in the "Interactive educational games" section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I might consider switching the order of the paragraphs in the companies' role section because the second paragraph is more explicitly related to the title of the section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, but I would maybe add more information to the Companies' role section to balance it out with the Users' role section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, citations are present throughout the article, and the sources used are reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the information is well-well written, and I really like how the content is broken down into sections.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I was not able to find any significant grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I really liked how the Users' role section was broken up into subsections. This really helped with breaking down main ideas.

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


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, great sources are used as references.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I like the way the article is organized and the content addition to the enhancements section. More perspectives are showcased throughout.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really like the subsections and how many different perspectives were considered like external factors and theories.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think adding more information the companies' role section might help with balancing the content in the users' role section. I also think privacy settings in voice control devices may be something interesting to explore, but the article is very well developed already, and I really enjoyed reading it!

Peer review Draft #3
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, I like how you organized the lead into three paragraphs.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, and I like how key words and phrases/acronyms are all outlined in this section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, everything is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, sources are all from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I like the addition of "See Also" and "Main article" at the beginning of sections of your article. I will also try to include this in my own article.
 * Nothing is missing, very thorough.

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?
 * I really like how you added to the "Companies' role" section. It is perfectly balanced with the "Users' role" section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, citations are appropriately placed, and all content is backed up by reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all of the sources are from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I really like the subsections that were added to the "Companies' role" section. I also like the subsections in the "External contributors" section.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I was not able to find any significant grammar or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, great organization!

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
 * It might be nice to add a picture showing the user interface of privacy settings for different sites.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, several 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. In the "Culture" section, I think it might be unnecessary to hyperlink to the "Japan" and "China" articles.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the organization is great, and really helps with understanding main ideas/perspectives throughout the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I really like "See also" and "Main article" sections at the beginning of the sections "Significance" and "Default settings." I also liked how the "Definition" section from earlier drafts was incorporated into the lead.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Great job! I think it might be nice to add some images and more hyperlinks to the "Interactive educational games section" and in the "Companies' role section."

Peer review Draft #4
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

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

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, it is a quote definition.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, great job! I love how you incorporated the various aspects of your article in the lead. It's super easy to follow and provides a great overview!
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Great length and amount of detail!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I really like the information added to the "Significance" section.
 * I also like the images that were added like the RR image that provides a good visual of some of the descriptions.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all sources are from the 2000s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, everything is relevant. Nothing is missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the content is balanced into subsections.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, everything is well represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, I like how new sources are added weekly.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they cover the diverse array of mentioned topics.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all from the 2000s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, great job!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I could not find any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I really like how the main ideas are broken down, especially for longer sections like the "Users' role" section. I also like the sebsections in the "External contributors" section. I really like the societal norms addition.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes!.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes. I really like the images that you selected to use!

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject Yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, great sources!
 * 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, there are links to other articles and "Main article" and "See also" sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, I really like how thorough your article is. There are many aspects of the subject matter covered, and I especially like how you explain everything with the right amount of detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The images are a great addition as they help with visualizing some of what is described. I also really like all of the examples that you incorporated throughout your article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * This is a super minor thing, but maybe consider making the subsections "Subheading 1" size.
 * Great job!