User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language

Peer review/ Lilmeowmeow3161
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? Plusoneplusone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language

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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, but a part of it seems unwritten so it's not yet included rather than not present entirely
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is good and maintains readability.

Lead evaluation
The beginning sentence is good and it is more simple and easy to read compared to the last lead!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article has a source from 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, there seems to be information for one section missing.
 * 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
Since there is nothing written under the Types of Bio Data section, there is missing content for the meantime. While the information is relevant, there needs to be more specific dates to the claims made, for example, when were some of the leaps in bio data you mentioned? Are there any specific notable events? "Past decades" is a bit too general.

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?
 * Yes, there are underrepresented viewpoints.
 * 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 maintains neutrality by focusing on the technical aspects of electronic commerce modeling languages.

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?
 * No
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, the article could use some more up-to-date citations.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links and citations works.

Sources and references evaluation
The one source listed is from 2006, so not the most up-to-date. The source does reflect the literature surrounding the topic, however there is only one. There should be more than 1 article to get the diverse spectrum of authors needed to fill the Wikipedia equity gaps.

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, the article features two main sections that are mostly developed.

Organization evaluation
I like how you include an Alliances section but i'm not sure what the relevancy of this section is. Further explanation could be helpful!

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


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

Images and media evaluation
If you find an image necessary, then perhaps it would be useful. I think an image would be helpful because E-commerce modeling languages may not be familiar to a broad audience.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is moderately fleshed out and has a good amount of links that work. The article could elaborate more on how ECML benefits the users (you mentioned a segment in the lead that it reduces shopping cart abandonment, but if you could expand on what this signifies that would be helpful!)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Plusoneplusone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and introduces the article's topic. It includes the "alliances" section but the other two sections are currently not introduced in the Lead. Everything in the Lead is relevant to 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 are all relevant to the topic and current. A more introduction within the Alliances section might provide a clear idea to the readers. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral and not biased towards a certain point of view. The article includes different viewpoints from different groups.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There are multiple citations for the article and most of them are current (2020); there was one source from 2003.

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 clear and organized in a logical way.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The article does not include images for now.

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 contains multiple sources and meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. The citations represent content related to the topic very well. There are also links to other articles which extend to more relevant topics.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


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

Overall evaluation
I think your article is great! To improve it you can incorporate more of your major sections into the Lead, and having more images for the audience. And because there are lots of technical terminologies in your article, try to assign hyperlinks to them so people can be directed to their information.

Peer review (Brian)
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)
 * Plusoneplusone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language

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
Overall, the lead is concise but does not give an overview of the rest of 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?

Content evaluation
Overall, the content so far are relevant and up-to-date. However, I think you can improve your privacy considerations section by expanding on how P3P makes the users' information vulnerable seeing that it was one of the questions I had while reading your article.

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
Overall, the content is neutral and unbiased.

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
Yes, all claims are backed by a source. All the sources (except for one) are from this year.

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
Overall, the article is organized well. The sections are each unique and add new information to the topic.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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
Currently, the article does not include any images.

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


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

New Article Evaluation
Yes, the article does meet the notability requirements and includes sources from both academic journals and online articles. It also includes a "see also" page, making 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
Overall, great first draft! I think adding more content/pictures to this will make the article better overall.

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) Plusoneplusone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - the introductory sentence provides a short definition of ECML and its application that is succinct and clear.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes - it briefly touches upon the companies that participate in the ECML alliance and how ECML helps address customer drop out behavior while online shopping.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and touches upon each major section listed in the rest of the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall, a really strong Lead that provides a succinct and comprehensive overview of ECML!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is up-to-date: all content is relevant and seems up to date, as it discusses the applications of ECML on online shopping today and current companies that participate in the ECML alliance.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No. However, the article does seem a bit short. Perhaps adding one or two more sections, or expanding on a pre-existing section, could help flesh out the article even more.
 * 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. However, it does discuss how ECML could pose a potential data privacy risk to online shoppers in general.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is informative, clear, and easily understandable.

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; there does not seem to be a particular viewpoint that is being overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * 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 - some sources seem to be from reputable academic journals. However, there are only five sources listed. Adding the 15 other sources from your bibliography would help strengthen the credibility of this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links I tried work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the provided sources seem reputable and relevant. Try adding the rest of your sources to further strengthen this 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 intuitive. The lead section touches upon points in the order in which the sections are organized (e.g. Alliances - ECML and customer dropout behaviors - Privacy considerations), which makes the overall flow of the article good.

Organization evaluation
Overall, organization is intuitive and clear.

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

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 - there are five sources provided to back up information in the article.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are only 5 sources provided. Adding the last 15 sources from your bibliography would strengthen this article overall and provide a more comphrehensive representation of literature available on ECML.
 * 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? - Headings and organization are similar to other articles. Infoboxes and media are not provided; including these things could make the article a bit more engaging and comprehensive.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? There are two hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles are provided. Adding a few more could help make this article even more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, this original article provides detailed content on ECML.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content is thorough and maintains a neutral while describing ECML.
 * How can the content added be improved? Possibly adding media, infoboxes, and a few more sections could help flesh out this article even more. Also, adding the rest of your sources would strengthen the credibility of this article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, a great start to creating an original Wikipedia article. It seems neutral and professional!

= Draft = Electronic Commerce Modeling Language (ECML) is a protocol which enables the e-commerce merchants to standardize their online payment processes. Through the application of ECML, customers' billing information in their digital wallet can be easily transferred to fill out the checkout forms.

There are various companies that have participated in ECML's alliances, including American Express and Mastercard.

ECML has solved the problem of complex and confusing online manual payments caused by diverse web designs, and further reduces the chance of customer dropout (also called shopping cart abandonment).

Alliances
The members of ECML Alliance listed in alphabetical order below :


 * 1) American Express (www.americanexpress.com>
 * 2) AOL (www.aol.com)
 * 3) Brodia (www.brodia.com)
 * 4) Compaq (www.compaq.com)
 * 5) CyberCash (www.cybercash.com)
 * 6) Discover (www.discovercard.com)
 * 7) FSTC (www.fstc.org)
 * 8) IBM (www.ibm.com)
 * 9) Mastercard (www.mastercard.com)
 * 10) Microsoft (www.microsoft.com)
 * 11) Novell (www.novell.com>
 * 12) SETCo (www.setco.org)
 * 13) Sun Microsystems (www.sun.com)
 * 14) Trintech (www.trintech.com>
 * 15) Visa International (www.visa.com)

ECML and Customer Dropout Behaviors
Customer dropout is also called shopping cart abandonment -- it is a type of behavior which customers display inclination of purchase without completing the final payment. According to a commercial study, there is a rate 40% to 50% that the customer would abandon a transaction before it is completed due to various reasons. Aside from motivational factors such as customer's fundamental needs and spontaneous purchases, emotional factors such as irritation and disappointment also determine whether a transaction would be successful. Research has shown that payment inconvenience and perceived wasting time are factors that would contribute to customer's irritation.

Electronic Commerce Modeling language could potentially decrease customer irritation in two ways, and further benefit the industry of electronic commerce as a whole. First of all, it provides a standardized set of information fields which would improve the manual process of online payment. Entering relevant information into the checkout form would become an easier task for customers. Secondly, ECML allows a smooth information transfer between customer's digital wallet and e-commerce checkout form. Information does not has to be manually entered into the system.

Privacy Considerations
Electronic Commerce Modeling Language is consistent with Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P), a controversial protocol which addresses online privacy concern. While some studies have suggested P3P as an effective way to increase user's accessibility on related privacy policies, opposite arguments have also been made to accuse P3P for making users' private information more vulnerable.

Since ECML is an application related with sensitive information such as credit card numbers and home addresses. Privacy considerations thus have became crucial. There are several suggestions listed below to protect customer's privacy :


 * 1) ECML memory of sensitive information cannot exist. If it is installed on a public terminal, the wallet has to be configurable.
 * 2) A password should be set up and required each time when the user wants to access the stored information.