User:Nicholas100000/sandbox

Evaluate an article (1): Information Privacy

 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It was assigned to me.

Lead evaluation
The lead does include a clear introductory sentence that concisely defines the topic and what will be written about.

Content evaluation
The article throughout follows the introductory sentence and is relevant. A quick look at some of the references indicates it is up to date as there are citations that are within 4 years. Also, I saw no content that did not belong, as the information was all relevant.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. From my reading, I saw no claims that were heavily biased, over or underrepresented views, and no persuasive rhetoric.

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are backed up by reliable sources, as a look at the references indicated sources such as the Information Management Journal. The sources are current with some articles written in 2019. I checked a few links and they work.

Organization evaluation
The article is concisely written. Such as the information types, which briefly summarizes each type. The article contained no grammatical or spelling errors. The article is also well organized by its headers and sub-headers.

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article.

Talk page evaluation
There are some conversations about including privacy protection in India and China, moving information privacy to informational privacy, questions about citations, and more. It is rated a C-Class. It is part of the WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject privacy. We haven't talked about this topic in depth in class yet.

Overall evaluation
My overall impression of the article is it seems to be a basic article, that could be strengthened and is considered high-importance. It's strengths are it is very easy to read because of its concise language and organization with headers, and there are good citations. It can be improved by expanding the information that is available, such as including information on information privacy in other counties. Furthermore, it is underdeveloped.

Evaluate an article (2): Privacy Law

 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I thought this would be another good starter wiki article to analyze, especially since I am doing a topic on hopefully privacy law.

Lead evaluation
The lead has a clear introductory sentence and puts in bold "Privacy Law," to clearly indicate the topic of the article. The definition also does a good job of introducing privacy law as it lists the relevant topics under privacy law.

Content evaluation
The article follows the introductory sentence and talks about privacy law throughout the article. Also, a quick look at some of the references indicates it is up to date since there are as there are citations that are 9 articles written in 2019 and 5 from 2020. Furthermore, the content is all related to privacy law as the article first defines, classifies, and then talks about international privacy law.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintains a neutral tone, stating only facts and dates. In the article, the article consistently uses only facts and dates to inform the article. Furthermore, there were no claims that were biased, over/under represented, and did not try to persuade the readers.

Sources and references evaluation
The article consistently cites information from reliable sources such as the Journal of Law and Technology and the Yale Law Journal. As cited before, there are many sources from 2019 and even 2020, so the sources are current. Lastly, I checked 10 different links and they all worked.

Organization evaluation
The article is very clearly written and organized in a way that makes it easily readable. The article is broken down into the intro, classification of privacy laws, international legal standard on privacy, and then Privacy laws by country. Under each header are concise facts that makes it quick to gather information from each header. The article contained little to no grammatical or spelling errors. Images and Media

Images and media evaluation
There are no images in this article.

Talk page evaluation
Surprisingly, despite recent articles, there are some conversations for updating info, reorganization of the countries, and more references. There is no rating for the article as it is or was part of a WIki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Yet it is also of interest to the following WikiProjects: Law, Human rights, and Computer Security/Computing; all of these are rated start-class, high importance. We haven't talked about this topic in class yet.

Overall evaluation
My overall impression of the article is it seems to be well written, especially as it has been peer reviewed as part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported Course Law. Some of its strengths are its clear organization and its quick, concise info on multiple countries. Some of its weakness is it perhaps lacks information on all countries. It only has information on 33 countries. As such, there is still some information that needs to be researched, and is underdeveloped.

Security Breach Notification Laws Article
What I noticed and plan to contribute to the article:


 * The first thing I notice is that the article's organization can be improved. As it is now, there are no headers.
 * I also notice that the article does not mention any actual security breaches, that may have spurred new laws.
 * The article also only briefly talks about the EU. I could potentially find more information on security breach notification laws in the EU and other countries.
 * I would also like to add information on the risk of security breaches and potential harms that arise from security breach as some background information of why notifications are important
 * potential links: the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Identity theft, Personal Data Notification & Protection Act (2009), Data breach, California Senate Bill 1386 (2002), The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), The Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Data Protection Directive, Protection of Personal Information (APPI)
 * Potential headers
 * Relationship between data breaches and identity crime
 * United States
 * The Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act of 2017
 * Europe
 * Australia
 * Other countries (Canada, New Zealand, UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Phillipines, China
 * Large data breaches
 * Federal vs. State Data Breach Notification Laws debate

Data Breach Notification Laws Rough Draft
Note: bolded words and strikethroughs are the changed I have made from the original article.

Security breach notification laws or data breach notification laws are laws that require individuals or entities affected by a data breach, unauthorized access to data, to notify their customers and other parties about the breach and take specific steps remedy the situation based on state legislature. '''Data breach notification laws have two main goals. The first goal is to allow individuals a chance to mitigate risks against data breaches. The second goal is to promote company incentive to strengthen data security.  Together, these goals work to minimize consumer harms from data breaches, including impersonation, fraud, and identity theft.'''

Such laws have been irregularly enacted in all 50 U.S. states since 2002, with the last 3 states having no privacy laws protecting citizens as late as 2016. New Mexico only passed their privacy law in 2017 and South Dakota and Alabama in 2018. '''Currently, all 50 states have enacted forms of data breach notification laws. It should be noted though, that there is no federal data breach notification law, despite previous legislative attempts. '''These laws were enacted in response to an escalating number of breaches of consumer databases containing personally identifiable information. Similarly, multiple other countries, like the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Australia's Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017 (Cth), have added data breach notification laws to combat the increasing occurrences of data breaches.

The rise in data breaches conducted by both countries and individuals is evident and alarming, as the number of reported data breaches has increased from 421 in 2011, to 1,091 in 2016, and 1,579 in 2017 according to the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC). It has also impacted millions of people and gained increasing public awareness due to large data breaches such as the October 2017 Equifax breach that exposed almost 146 million individual's personal information.

Australia
'''In 2017, Australia passed the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017 (Cth), which went into action in 2018. This amended the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which had established a notification system for data breaches involving personal information that lead to harm. The amendment is coming off large data breaches experiences in Australia, such as the Yahoo hack in 2013 involving thousands of government officials and the data breach of NGO Australian Red Cross releasing 550,000 blood donor's personal information.'''

'''Criticism of the data breach notification include: the unjustified exemption of certain entities such as small businesses and the Privacy Commissioner not required to post data breaches in one permanent place to be used as data for future research. In addition, notification obligations are not consistent at a state level'''

China
In mid-2017, China adopted a new Cyber security Law, which included data breach notification requirements.

*** add more information

European Union (EU)
'''In 1995, the EU passed the Data Protection Directive (DPD), which has recently been replaced with the 2016 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a comprehensive federal data breach notification law. The GDPR offers stronger data protection laws, broader data breach notification laws, and new factors such as the right to data portability. However, certain areas of the data breach notification laws are supplemented by other data security laws.'''

Examples of this include,The European Union implemented a breach notification law in the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications (E-Privacy Directive) in 2009, specific to personal data held by telecoms and Internet service providers. This directive has to be implemented by national law until 25 May 2011. This law contains some of the notification obligations for data breaches.

Furthermore, the traffic data of the subscribers, who use voice and data via a network company, is saved from the company only for operational reasons. However, the traffic data must be deleted when they aren’t necessary anymore, in order to avoid the breaches. On the other hand ,However the traffic data areis necessary for the creation and treatment of subscriber billing. The use of these data is available only up to the end of the period that the bill can be repaid based on the law of European Union (Article 6 - paragraphs 1-6 ). Regarding the marketing usage of the traffic data for the sale of additional chargeable services, they can be used from the company only if the subscriber gives his/her consent (but, the consent can be withdrawn at every time). Also, the service provider must inform the subscriber or user of the types of traffic data which are processed and of the duration of that based on the above assumptions. Processing of traffic data, in accordance with the above details, must be restricted to persons acting under the authority of providers of the public communications networks and publicly available electronic communications services handling billing or traffic management, customer inquiries, fraud detection, marketing electronic communications services or providing a value added service, and must be restricted to what is necessary for the purposes of such activities.

'''Data breach notification obligations are included in the new Directive on security of network and information systems (NIS Directive). This creates notification requirements on essential services and digital service providers. Among these include immediately notifying the authorities or computer security incident response teams (CSIRTS) if they experience a significant data breach.'''

Similar to US concerns for a state-by-state approach creating increased costs and difficulty complying with all the state laws, the EU's various breach notification requirements in different laws creates concern. ***consider attributing this sentence more clearly

Japan
*** are there more up to date articles?

'''In 2015, Japan amended the Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI) to combat massive data leaks. Specifically, the massive Benesse Corporation data leak in 2014 where nearly 29 million pieces of private customer information was leaked and sold. This includes new penal sanctions on illegal transaction, however, there is no specific provision dealing with data breach notification in the APPI. Instead, the Policies Concerning the Protection of Personal Information, in accordance with the APPI, creates a policy that encourages business operators to disclose data breaches voluntarily.'''

Kaori Ishii and Taro Komukai have theorized that the Japanese culture offers a '''potential explanation for why there is no specific data breach notification law to encourage companies to strengthen data security. The Japanese general public and mass media, in particularly, condemn leaks. Consequently, data leaks quickly result in losing customer trust, brand value, and ultimately profits. An example of this include, after a 2004 data leak, Softbank swiftly lost 107 billion yen and Benesse Corporation lost 940,000 customers after the data leak. This has resulted in compliance with disclosing data leaks in accordance with the policy'''.

While proving the Japanese culture makes specific data breach notification laws necessary is difficult to objectively prove, what has been shown is that companies that experience data breach do experience both financial and reputation harm.

United States
'''Data Breach Notification Laws have been enacted in all 50 states as of 2020. Attempts to pass a federal data breach notification law have been unsuccessful.'''

The 50 U.S. States
*** need to add citation to previous parts.

The first such law, the California data security breach notification law, was enacted in 2002 and became effective on July 1, 2003. The bill was enacted in reaction to the fear of identity theft and fraud. As related in the bill statement, law requires "a state agency, or a person or business that conducts business in California, that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, as defined, to disclose in specified ways, any breach of the security of the data, as defined, to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person." In addition, the law permits delayed notification "if a law enforcement agency determines that it would impede a criminal investigation." The law also requires any entity that licenses such information to notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the data.

In general, most state laws follow the basic tenets of California's original law: Companies must immediately disclose a data breach to customers, usually in writing. California has since broadened its law to include compromised medical and health insurance information. Where bills differ most is at what level the breach must be reported to the state Attorney General (usually when it affects 500 or 1000 individuals or more). Some states like California publish these data breach notifications on their oag.gov websites. Breaches must be reported if "sensitive personally identifying information has been acquired or is reasonably believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person, and is reasonably likely to cause substantial harm to the individuals to whom the information relates." This leaves room for some interpretation (will it cause substantial harm?); but breaches of encrypted data need not be reported. Nor must it be reported if data has been obtained or viewed by unauthorized individuals as long as there is no reason to believe they will use the data in harmful ways.

The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a list of enacted and proposed security breach notification laws.

Some of the state differences in data breach notification laws include thresholds of harm suffered from data breaches, the need to notify certain law enforcement or consumer credit agencies, broader definitions of personal information, and differences in penalties for non-compliance.

*** include examples of states that have differences, bc only CA is talked about.

Federal Data Breach Notification Law History
'''As of 2020, there is no federal data breach notification law. The first proposed federal data breach notification law was introduced to Congress in 2003, but it never exited the Judiciary Committee. Similarly, a''' number of bills that would establish a national standard for data security breach notification have been introduced in the U.S. Congress, but none passed in the 109th Congress. In fact, in 2007, three federal data breach notification laws were proposed, but none passed Congress. In his 2015 State of the Union speech, President Obama proposed new legislation to create a national data breach standard that would establish a 30-day notification requirement from the discovery of a breach. '''This led to President Obama's 2015 Personal Data Notification & Protection Act (PDNPA) proposal. This would have created federal notification guidelines and standards, but it never came out of committee.'''

'''Chlotia Garrison and Clovia Hamilton theorized that a potential reason for the inability to pass a federal law on data breach notifications is states' rights. As of now, all 50 states have varying data breach notification laws. Some are restrictive, while others are broad. While there is not a federal law on data breach notifications, some states have data privacy laws with data breach provisions. Some notable examples include: the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), the Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).'''

Debate over federal or state data breach notification laws
*** see if can add information on the debate

*** be more specific than most scholars: "Scholars who advocate for federal data breach notification laws such as (name)..." or attribute it to the source making the claim ala "According to (name), ...".

Most scholars '''who advocate for federal data breach notification laws emphasize the problem with having varying forms of data breach notification laws. That is, companies are forced to comply with multiple state data breach notification laws. This creates increased difficulty to comply with the laws and the costs. In addition, scholars have argued that a state-by-state approach has created the problem of uncompensated victims and inadequate incentives to persuade companies and governments to invest in data security.'''

Advocates of a state-by-state approach to data breach notification laws emphasize increased efficiency, increased incentives to have the local governments increase data security, limited federal funding available due to multiple projects, and lastly states are able to quickly adapt and pass laws to constantly evolving data breach technologies.

Impact
'''Data Breaches occur because of technical issues like bad code to economic issues causing competing firm to not cooperate with each other to tackle data security. In response, data breach notification laws attempt to prevent harm to companies and the public.'''

Crime Impact
'''A serious harm of data breaches is identity theft. Identity theft can harm individuals when their personal data is stolen and is used by another party to create financial harm such as withdrawing their money, non financially such as fraudulently claiming their health benefits, and pretending to be them and committing crimes. Based on data collected from 2002 to 2009 from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the use of data breach notification has helped to decrease identity theft by 6.1 percent. '''

Economic Impact
Overall, data breach notifications leads to decreasing market value, evident in publicly traded companies experiencing a decrease in market valuation. Other costs include loss of consumer confidence and trust in the company, loss of business, decreased productivity, and exposure to third-party liability. '''Notably, the type of data that is leaked from the breach has varying economic impact. A data breach that leaks sensitive data experiences harsher economic repercussions.'''

Victim response
'''Most federal data breach lawsuits share certain characteristics. These include a plaintiff seeking relief from the loss of an identity theft, emotional distress, future losses, and increased risk of future harm; the majority of litigation are private class actions; the defendants are usually large firms or businesses; a mix of common law and statutory causes of action; and lastly most cases settle or are dismissed. '''

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Nicholas100000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/sandbox

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 introduces the article's topic in a great detail. Everything discussed in the Lead is mentioned within the article's main section. It's good to see how you made changes based on the original article!

Content
Guiding questions:

The content added is up-to-date, with sources mostly coming from around 2015. The are no specific equity groups dealt with in the article.
 * 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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and no point is overrepresented.Currently the article lacks information for sections of China and International Data Breach Notification Laws, but I saw your notes on that so I believe an equivalence of information would be added!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The content added are all backed up by reliable sources and all the links I check worked. The sources are current for most of them were published around 2005-2019.

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 added information is easy to read and the overall content is organized in a clear manner. There are no spelling errors that I found.

Images and Media
The article currently does not have images.

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
Great job overall! By not only adding new information but also making changes to the article definitely equipped the article with more sources! I also can see what are your next steps through your notes, so just keep working and you'll have a wonderful article :)!

Lead
Lead is well-written, concise, and you've clearly detailed how you're going to update the current article's lead. Good that you citations in the Lead and links to other articles, too.

Content
The content added is relevant to the topic and up-tp-date.

Tone and Balance
The tone of the content added is neutral and there are no point is overrepresented. There are sections, which I know you have already pointed out with your notes, that can be expanded.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. They are thorough, current (most recent is from 2020), and diverse. I checked a some of the links, which worked. You are currently under the twenty source requirement (by only two sources), so you should incorporate your final two sources before you upload to the mainspace.

Organization
The content added is well-written. It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is well-organized, being broken down into clear sections and sub-sections (e.g., by country).

Copy-edit suggestion:

Make sure you section titles are only capitalized for the first word and proper nouns. Otherwise, for example, the "impact" in "Crime Impact" and "Economic Impact" can be de-capitalized.

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
N/A. Try to find and add some relevant pictures, if you can!

Overall impressions
Well done! You wrote clearly and concisely and in a neutral tone. You article is very well-organized. You seem to know what needs to be fixed (more like expanded), and once you've done that, your article should be well on its way to being added to the mainspace.

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Nicholas100000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - the introductory sentence is succinct, clear, and gives an overview of data breach laws.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - it briefly touches upon the end goal of data breach laws, it discusses the history of the laws' implementation, and it talks about an increased international push to establish these laws in the wake of serious data breaches that have affected millions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No - the Lead does a good job of covering the major points of the article. However, I noticed that there is an "Impact" section, which is not talked about at all in the Lead. Perhaps adding a few words to explain the positive/negative significance of these laws would make the Lead more comprehensive.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise, but touches upon the major points discussed in the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall, a really strong Lead that provides a succinct and comprehensive overview of security breach notification laws.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up-to-date: for example, American and foreign data breach laws that were established in the 2010s are extensively discussed. In the "Crime Impact" subsection, a dataset collected from 2002 to 2009 is used as evidence of data breach laws helping to limit identity fraud. A more current dataset or evidence (such as from the 2010s) could make this point more relevant and up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Historically underrepresented populations are not explicitly addressed, but this is difficult to do so given the article subject. It does discuss vulnerable populations who have suffered the consequences of data breaches, however.

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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes - there are no opinionated statements included.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, although there seems to be more focus on US and EU data breach laws than for countries such as China. Perhaps expanding upon the "China" subsection could help balance this out.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No - maintains a neutral, unbiased tone throughout.

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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes - all information has an in-text citation.
 * Are the sources thorough and current? - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes - most sources have been published in the late 2010s. Most sources seem to be drawn from reputable, peer-reviewed academic journals. These journals are varied and reflect the diversity of available literature on the topic: there are information policy, information and communications technology law, and empirical legal studies academic journals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links I tried work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the sources look reputable, strong, and relevant. Adding your last 7 sources to the bibliography would help strengthen the article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes - content is easy to understand and succinct, but still maintains a formal tone.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammar or spelling errors found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes - I think the organization and flow is very intuitive. I like how the article begins with "Legislative history" to introduce us to the laws' early development and implementation, and ends with "Impact" to discuss the laws' effects.

Organization evaluation
Overall, organization is intuitive and clear.

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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Added content has made this article more thorough and well-rounded. Specifically, I think the added information on data breach laws from Australia, Japan, and China help make the article less centered around American and EU law.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Added content has made this article more comprehensive overall, especially because it introduces other countries' data breach laws and makes it less Euro/American centric.
 * How can the content added be improved? Possibly adding media and infoboxes.

Overall evaluation
Overall, great added content to this Wikipedia article. It seems more fleshed out and has a good formal tone employed throughout!

Lead
I think you have a very strong lead, which is straightforward and describes the importance of data breach notification laws. There is a nice introduction to the laws in place in the US and American data leakages, but because you also discuss notification laws in other countries, I would add a preface in the lead about some other countries that you will also be discussing in the article. It currently seems like the article's main focus is on the US. You could also discuss the two main goals before stating that all 50 states have laws implemented, to make the transition into the next section smoother (it does not matter that much though). Overall, I think your lead introduces your topic well and gives the readers an idea of data breach notification law importance.

copy edit suggestion: "data breaches, and they have a right..." When describing the first goal, I think the grammar flow is broken with the "and they have a right" clause.

Content
I think your content is excellently written prose, and you have a neutral stance and are simply relaying information. In the passage"Some of the state differences...", I would suggest including examples of the states that have the differences if you can so more than just California is explicitly discussed. Also, you give a small intro under the US section, but not the International Laws section, so I would maybe give a general statement about most other countries, and then dive into the specific ones you have lined up.

copy edit: "breach notification include: the unjustified" remove the colon because you only mention one thing in the sentence.

Tone and Balance
Overall, the content is well balanced. However, at the end when discussing China and impact, there seems to be less weight put to these subjects. If you can, I'd suggest elaborating more on the impact section. Your tone is unbiased, and you do not try and convince the reader to a particular POV which is great. I appreciate how you presented both sides to the debate about state and federal laws in the US, indicating a neutral article.

Sources and References
There are a few passages or paragraphs that are missing sources, so I would go back and make sure at least every paragraph can be cited. I am also not sure if the original article cites sources throughout, but if not, those would need sources as well. Similarly, you could add Wikipedia links to other topics (for example, the specific acts passed if you can find pages for them). Other than that, you have reliable sources, which are well balanced throughout the article.

Organization
I think your structure is organized well, aside from my suggestion in the lead. There is a clear order to things and transition nicely into each section.

Overall impressions
Overall, I think this article is really well written and has well distributed content where except for the last section, each section has a lot of information. This article is really strong content wise, hitting all many places laws are in place as well as history behind the laws. I think to improve the article, I would add more to the China and Impacts section, as well as adding more sources and Wikipedia links throughout the article when you can. I think this is a great example of a Wikipedia article, and I really like your expository writing! Madssnake (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead:
The lead seems really strong and full of information. I really liked how you brought up how all 50 states have enacted their own laws but nothing on the federal level. You also went on to explain specifically why states took action, which is a great point to bring up and add details that the readers may be curious about. As a reader I felt informed about with the information provided. My suggestion for the lead would be to go mover in depth about the two goals. Maybe hit return and briefly describe the purpose of the two goals and why it is important that these goals are met.

(Also, the first sentence has a grammar issue with "an individuals")

Content:
The article discusses a lot of solid information, but I think that there is an imbalance between the amount of information on the United States and other countries. I think that maybe continue to look into more international countries and their laws in order to take some of the focus on the United States. I like how you bring up lots of facts to back up your statements and provide examples such as HIPAA. I assume you have a lot you still want to add, so I think as you add more on other countries and the history behind how the laws were created/passed would help strength the article. Great first draft and keep up the work and content!

Tone:
You are doing a great job in trying to keep everything neutral and not biased in terms of opinions. I think the section on the debate is a good example of neutrality by talking about both sides and their arguments. I think it might be good to even go more in depth on that part since it is very interesting! Another suggestion is to see if there are any debates for the laws in other countries and be more specific. A little bit was brought up for the section on Japan, but going more in depth would be interesting to see.

Organization:
I think creating a separate section for the United States and Internationally is a good thought, but I think that in order to eliminate any bias of information, there should be one section dedicated to the laws around the world and having the United States as one of the countries. I think from there it is okay to talk about all 50 states and go more in depth on certain ones like California. I also think you can rename the "Attempts" section as History maybe since attempts is a little confusing. This part in discussing the history of the attempts to pass a law is interesting, and I look forward to seeing information on this!

Sources:
The section about the 50 states needs more citations since you bring up the statements on notifying people on their website or how many states are similar/follow the same ideas as the California law. The reference in the Japan section is also a bit old (2006) so maybe look to see if there is another journal article that is more recent? For the most part, your references are up to date!

Overall Impressions:
I was really impressed and it really showed that you did a lot of research on your topic. Some of the things that stood out to me and that I liked where the debates and the bit of history on the various attempts to try to pass a federal law. There are a lot of great subtopics in this draft, and once you continue to add more and expand, it will be a really strong and useful article. There are some small grammar issues and wordy sentences that can be reworded, but those are an easy fix (ex: Japanese Culture culture doesn't nee to be capitalized). You are on a great start so keep going!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Nicholas1000000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/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
In the lead you can briefly mention the laws in other countries and impact of this law, which you dicussed in the main section.

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? Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
I know you are still working on many sections, and from your sidenotes I feel the final version will be very impressive. Keep going!

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
Neutral and objective

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
Currently the number of references is a little small, but I read your sidenotes and know you are aware of this issue and still working on it.

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

Organization evaluation
I really like the overall organization of this article, and in general it is easy to read. There are some grammatical issue that can be improved. Some sentences are overly long and can be rephrased in some way to make it easier to read. There are also some small typos.

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? They make the content more diverse.
 * How can the content added be improved? From your sidenotes, I think you are on the good track.

Overall evaluation
Your contribution to this article changes it from unnecessarily US centric to more diverse and informative. From your sidenotes, I think you already considered a lot of potential problems and things that can be added to this article. Well done and keep going!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Nicholas1000000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/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
In your lead you described two goals, and it would be good if you could maybe add some content about that later in your section. I do like that you have a legislative section, but maybe adding some more sections onto that would be comprehensive to describe security breach notification laws.

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? Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
I know you are still working on many sections, and I would love to see you expand on the security breach laws worldwide!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The United States is primarily represented, try adding more countries to represent a global view.
 * 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
Historical, factual, neutral

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
You have 16 references which is good, and I would like to see the journals more, but so far, so good!

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

Organization evaluation
You had a few grammatical errors in the legislative history section, and I think that there could be some sentences that you shorten. For example, you have a couple of semi-colons which can be a bit awkward to read.

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? They make the content more diverse.
 * How can the content added be improved? From your sidenotes, I think you are on the good track.

Overall evaluation
I can see that you considered a global view, and I noticed that you have the note that this article represents a US-centric worldview and should be updated. Excited to see what bills you'll add next and your build up of sections later on that!

Peer review - James Wang
General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Nicholas1000000

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/sandbox#Security Breach Notification Laws Article

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

Pretty good detailed content in your lead section! I would consider adding the detailed numerical examples and statistics for your body section rather than lead section though. Like the 421 in 2011, to 1,091 in 2016, and 1,579 in 2017 part.

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

Good content so far! Add more content to crime impacts due to privacy and data breach issues nationally and internationally. Also, expand on contents related to countries that's not the US. Try including some less developed countries as well to have more of a diversity and equity consideration!

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

Tone is neutral and you describe the laws and examples pretty well in each section!

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 links all work, consider adding all your 20 sources though! Also you can add even more sources related to different laws in various countries and how non-US governments have been trying to detect or prevent data breaches.

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

I think the structure right now is good, but could be improved. I feel like maybe putting content for each country feels a little choppy and not coherent as an article. Consider forming larger topics about data breach laws: background of these laws, commonalities/differences between them, impacts of them, examples of them. Then put the individual countries and examples into these bigger categories of topics.

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

Consider adding some images about laws or examples of how a law is drafted. Or maybe consider adding images about the impacts of data breaches.

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, I think the additions to this article is good so far! You can improve the article by adding some images, synthesizing some ideas and contents together, and maybe considering a restructure of your topics based on larger themes! Keep working you got this!

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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Nicholas100000
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Nicholas100000/sandbox

Lead evaluation
The lead is well-written, just make sure you add maybe a short sentence about China in the lead paragraph, since it's a section in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and doesn't attempt to persuade the reader on a particular stance.

Sources and references evaluation
The links work and the articles are diverse in nuances of the topic, so I assume the authors are diverse as well. The sources are recent and reliable.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article makes sense and is good. The contents of the article have good readability.

Images and media evaluation
No images to evaluate.

Overall evaluation
Perhaps consider adding more to the China section of the article, although I see that you noted that in the article draft. Overall, good job!

Review (Leadership)
Hi Nicholas100000, you have a really well-structured article. I can see you have already cited multiple resources and also included in-text citation and hyperlinks in your article. This is great and demonstrates the credibility of your article. Also, please remember to add a more citations in order to satisfy the requirement. Another think I noticed is that you have included multiple countries and regions, which is also pretty nice. In all, I think you have a pretty good structure of the article. Here are some specific suggestions:


 * In the second paragraph of "The 50 U.S. States" and first paragraph of "Japan", please add a few citations to make sure there is no plagiarism issues.
 * For your impact section, I think you can consider to add more information about other countries and regions. It seems to me that the current impact mentioned are still about the U.S.. Since this is a review on all the data breach laws, you may want to include impact from other counties and regions as well
 * There is an extra space in "Security breach notification laws or data breach notification laws are laws that require individuals or entities affected by a data breach".
 * I think you actually mean "customer inquires" in "customer enquiries".

In general, I think this is a well-structured and comprehensive draft on the data breach law. Good job!