User:Niangao/Hard Privacy Technologies/Panacotta101 Peer Review

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Niangao
 * Reviewed by eddyd101

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I'm not sure if it was updated. The suggestions made by Panacotta101 seem like they would enhance the Lead.
 * 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? No

Lead evaluation
The Lead provides a nice overview. It could be edited to be slightly more concise and clear.

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? It would be nice for there to be an overview of what anonymous communications was or details about some of the forms listed.
 * 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 seems to hit on key aspects of the topic. Some of the sections could be more developed to provide additional information to the reader.

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 article is neutral in tone and does not overrepresent a viewpoint or try to persuade.

Sources and References
I was having trouble finding where you posted the article so I used the copy and pasted version from Panecotta101's copy edits. That version did not include citations, but I'm guessing that's because it didn't copy properly.

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?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content could be phrased better at times for clarity.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? 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? 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? I can't see the list.
 * 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? The article uses sections well. It is significantly less thorough than the soft privacy article
 * 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The article is a really solid start. Some of the sections should be expanded still to more fully cover the topic.

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) Niangao
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Niangao/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 added. It introduces the topic in the first sentence. It also includes description of following sections. Lead is concise in general, but the last sentence does not have a suitable tone for a Wikipedia article.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
Most content are relevant to the topic. For sections on anonymous communication, there could be more explanations on how this is connected with hard privacy technologies. It is not sure whether the content is up-to-date. It does not deal with Wikipedia 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 are neutral. It does not seem to be biased towards a particular position. There could be more discussion on issues or problems of hard privacy technologies to present both sides of this topic.

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
Only one reference has been added right now.

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
Some content are not written in full sentences. The article does not contain many grammatical or spelling errors, but some sentences are a bit hard to read. Sections could be organized more clearly using different levels of headings.

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 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
Not enough sources has been added to this article. The pattern of this article is quite similar to other articles. The article could be linked to articles like privacy-enhancing technologies to make it 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
Content added makes the article more complete. It explains the families of hard privacy technologies and several other perspectives. The structure of this article is quite comprehensive. Sections of this article could be organized more clearly and content can be developed with more details.

Copy Edit
Lead:

Hard privacy technologies is a method of protecting data. Hard privacy technologies and soft privacy technologies both fall under the category of privacy enhancing technologies. Hard privacy technologies allow online users to protect their privacy of their personal information through different services and applications without the trust of the trusting third-parties. The data protection goal is data minimization and reduction of the trust in third-parties and the freedom (and techniques) to conceal information or to communicate. Examples of such (Applications of hard privacy) technologies include Onion routing, VPNs, and the secret ballot used for democratic elections, (which could all cope with different privacy threats).

To extent this article, i would like to on different applications that used as hard privacy technologies, and how does each applications work to cope with different privacy threats.

Systems for anonymous communications

 * Mix networks
 * DC­networks
 * ISDN mixes
 * Onion Routing
 * Crowds

Attacks against anonymous communications
Traffic Analysis is used to (protect) against vanilla or hardened systems.

Attacks on anonymity systems is used to trace who is talking with whom, extract profiles, and so on.

Privacy enhancing technology
Privacy-enhancing technologies can be distinguished based on their assumption into hard privacy technologies and soft privacy technologies.

Soft privacy technologies
Where it (Soft privacy technologies are based on the assumption that) is assumed that the third-party can be trusted for the processing of data. This model is based on compliance, consent, control and audit.

Onion routing
Onion routing is an internet-based encrypted technique to prevent eavesdropping, traffic analysis attacks and so on. Messages in an onion network are embedded in the encryption layers.

The destination in each layer will be encrypted. For each router, message is decrypted by its private key and unveiled like a 'onion' and then the message transmitted to the next router.

Tor is a free-to-use anonymity service that depends on the concept of onion routing. Among all the PETs, Tor has one of the highest user bases.

VPNs
Virtual Private Network(VPN) is one of the most important way to protect personal information. VPN connects a private network into a public network which helps users to share information through public networks extends to their computer devices. Thus, using VPNs may benefit from more security.

Compliance
Data Protection and US disclosure legislation

Hard Privacy technologies
Active research and sensitivity to location

LINDDUN methodology
LINDDUN methodology talks about the ideas of six different privacy threats and how to protect personal information from them.