User:Plusoneplusone/Electronic commerce modeling language/Jameswang323 Peer 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? The lead section has been written to provide summary ECML and its use in easing customer payment transactions
 * 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? Not clearly, the lead section should be slightly longer and describe the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Nope.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? pretty concise, but need to include categories.

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? Need more information in privacy considerations page. It can also include contents on examples of ECML, how it prevents identity theft/authentication failures, and potential uses for ECML in more detail. Article can also include more research on Customer dropout.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? the article is neutral and addresses to all payment consumers, so it addressed underrepresented populations. If someone can't afford to pay stuff online though, then this article might not be relevant to them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article suggests that ECML is beneficial to decreasing customer dropout rate and can aid in customer transactions. It begins to address privacy concerns of ECML but needs more content here.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, but should consider weaknesses and defects of ECML like privacy concerns
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? slightly, that ECML is good for customer transactions.

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, but need to add a lot more sources (in the upcoming weeks)
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the two so far.
 * 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 it's concise and clear. But need more content.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Electronic Commerce Modeling Language is an application related with (related to) sensitive information such as credit card numbers and home addresses. Privacy considerations thus have became(become) crucial.  Information does not has to be manually entered into the system. Change to "Information does not have to be ..."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, but need more sections.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Nope. Need to add, but you can do it toward the end! This one is easy to add.
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? only has 2 source so far so I can't tell.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? the two sources are good so far.
 * 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? Nope, need to add this as well. Maybe choose to add key words and phrases like customer dropout rate, credit card numbers, payment inconvenience to other pages.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, since this is a new article, this is a good start but you need to add more sections like I suggested.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear and concise lead section. The article is also straightforward to read and is trying to address both the positives of ECML and the privacy conners related to it.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add more sections, link to other pages, use a variety of sources, and attach pictures!