User:Plusoneplusone/sandbox

Article Feedback (Leadership)
Great start to your article! I really like how you incorporated information from the sources you read in an easy to understand way. I also like how you maintain a neutral tone throughout the article. The article is also very balanced so far. The first sentence of your article is also very good! I like how you added a “See also” section to your article as well. You are only using 6 sources in your article, but you need to include references to and information from all 20 sources from your bibliography.

Here are some suggestions:


 * Add more hyperlinks to other articles, for example, “e-commerce” in the lead.
 * Headings need to only have the first word capitalized, and this is a Wikipedia rule.
 * For example, “Privacy considerations and suggestions” not “Privacy Considerations and Suggestions”
 * The 2nd paragraph in the “ECML and Customer Dropout Behaviors” section should have another citation
 * I would also consider adding descriptions for all of the companies in the “Alliances” section.

Lead evaluation
The article has an introductory sentence that introduces electronic commerce modeling language, but is unclear. It is unclear what you mean by "standardize their online payment process." I think you may clarify this in the next sentence, but it was just unclear to me. Other than that it was written clearly and introduces the topics that will be further evaluated later.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant. I do not know if you just have not gotten to it yet, but for the alliances I would add a brief explanation of each, or at the very least perhaps add links to the company wiki if there is one. The content is up to data as the majority of sources so far were written in 2020.

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is neutral.

Sources and references evaluation
the content is all backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Although the sources are good, there still needs to be a lot more sources, 14 at least. The sources so far though are very current. I checked a few links and they work.

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

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and concise. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I could find. The article has headers that are relevant and organizes the article well.

Images and media evaluation
There is no images.

New Article Evaluation
I think the article meets Wikipedia's notability requirement as the see also section lists 8 other wiki links. There are only 6 sources so far, which is a good start. It also follows the pattern of similar articles.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article is well written. I look forward to when you add more information about the alliances why it is controversial and privacy considerations.

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? 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
You can briefly mention the major sections you have added to your lead to introduce your topic.

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? No, topic is not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Content evaluation
The article lacks content. Not a lot of information is added. A few sentences of each alliances could be added so readers have a general idea of what they are. Another section that could be added are applications of ECML to the real world. Going back to your bibliography annotations can definitely help you with adding new sections or information to your article.

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 tone and balance is great. No opinionated words are used.

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? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The article only has 5 sources referenced which lacks diversity and reliability to your article. A great way is to refer to your annotated bibilography. You should have 20 so far, and you can definitely used it here.

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

Organization evaluation
Organisation is great.

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?
 * 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 No images added.

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? No
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
More sources and information could be added.

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? The lead is pretty well written so that readers can have a good sense of what ECML is.
 * How can the content added be improved? More sources and more sections.

Overall evaluation
The article is a bit lacking so more efforts can be put in but it looks like a great start!

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? Plusoneplusone
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 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 good, concise, and detailed. The lead includes everything except a mention of the privacy section of the article, so adding that to the lead would make it stronger. It doesn't include information that's not already 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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic, and the content-seems up-to-date. All the content either directly talks about the topic or connects to it in some way. It doesn't seem to address topics related to underrepresented populations, but it does deal with Wikipedia's gaps in terms of providing information on a topic that was non-existent in the Wikipedia space.

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. Both of the last sections provide pros and cons for the topic at hand. Perhaps if the information is available, a sentence or two could be added to discuss how ECML could harm the industry, since the second section discusses how it would benefit it. Although I'm unsure if that is why the third section related to privacy concerns is there. If the section on privacy was meant to add a con to equalize a pro, then the article should be good. If not, an additional clarification would prevent the article from seeming to endorse ECML.

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
Few of the articles are recent, while some are from the early 2000s. For the source from 2003 about privacy policies, I'm unsure if those have changed or not due to the development of technology, so that source might need to be looked into further. Other than that, everything else seems good. The links work, and I can't distinguish whether the authors come from a diverse spectrum, although I don't think it's crucial for this particular topic to have such a wide spectrum.

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 very concise throughout, and there are no noticeable errors. The content is organized in a way that makes sense.

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 images to evaluate.

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 is relatively small and thus there are only 5 articles. They are diverse in content and address opinions and content summaries. Not sure if it accurately represents all available literature, but it represents a diverse amount of literature. It follows similar structures to other articles. The article also links to a lot of articles 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
The article is a very clear-read, and it was informative. The recommendations mentioned above are some improvements that could be made (EX. Adding a sentence in the lead addressing the privacy section, finding a source that talks about how ECML could be harmful to the electronic commerce industry, since the article claims that it could be a benefit to that industry (just to maintain neutrality)).

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? 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? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a bit concise, maybe add another section (more details on the talk page) but I think you could add a few sentences to summarize it more.

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? I'm not sure what the relevancy of the affiliations is
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? So far yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Does not include a diverse spectrum of authors
 * 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? Sort of, maybe have simpler language from the outset?
 * 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, so far

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NA
 * 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? Yes

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


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

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Additional links, more information by having an affiliated organizations section which is quite rare in the natural language processing portion.
 * How can the content added be improved? More information on the relevancy of this language -- what does it do ? who is it for? how does it help/ harm groups of people?

Overall evaluation
The article was focused on the privacy considerations which I liked and found especially relevant. I liked the sections you included with "see more" and other affiliated pages. I think that the topic is a bit difficult to understand, so if you could include more information in the lead section that would be best!

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, great first draft! I think adding more content/pictures to this will make the article better overall.
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Information privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article talks about the general term "Information Privacy", which is now a major concern given the fast speed of information exchange and data spread. This article has a wide range of intended audiences and deserves the attention of evaluation.

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
In general, the lead section has meet the criteria of a good Wikipedia article. The first sentence of the lead gives an introductory definition of "Information Privacy," which is pretty concise and easy to understand. There is a table of content that provides a clear structure and hyperlinks which could direct the readers to each section. While all the information in the lead is presented in the article, the lead section is not overly detailed. It leaves spaces for the following sections to expand and elaborate.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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 provided is relevant to the topic of "Information Privacy." This article addressed and explained different information types and the legal protection of privacy in different countries, without any obviously dated information. As this article serves both an introductory reading of "Information Privacy" and a roadmap that would lead the readers to branches such as "Financial Privacy" and "Medical Privacy", I consider it a complete article with sophisticated structure. However, I do think the article should do a greater job to take into considerations of marginalized groups. When thinking of "Information Privacy", it would be better to address the information within the legal system (the privacy of people with criminal records).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of this article is neutral in general: no first person pronounce or persuasive sentences have appeared. This article doesn't take any particular position. Instead, it has presented facts about information types and privacy protection in an objective way (facts are supported by in-text citation).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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 article has used and cited a variety of sources from a wide range of time spectrum. While I still see sources published within the last five years, a lot of the cited articles are from 10 or 15 years ago. It might be necessary to try to find the updated information. All the facts are supported by a citation and links are working well. The sources are written by diverse authors, such as news reporter and academic professionals.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
This article follows a concise and clear structure. It defines information privacy, categorizes information types, and displays the privacy protection system in different countries. No obvious grammatical or spelling errors have appeared. As I described, the broken down sections has followed a logical order and they collectively contributed to reflect information privacy's major points.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Unfortunately, this article does not include any images. Missing images would discourage people's interest to read through the entire article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is a part of WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass Surveillance. The contributors of this article have discussed the alternative name change from "Information Privacy" to "Informational Privacy". Minor adjustments such as expired links, clarification of introductory sentences, and added sources were also discussed in the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
In general, the article has meet most of the criteria as a good wikipedia article. Its lead section is concise and provides a clear definition of information privacy. Its structure is clear and follows a logical order. The content of this article is all relevant and well supported by a variety of sources. As I have stated above, this article is well developed both as an introduction of information privacy and an overview of privacy sub-topics. On the other hand, this article could be improved by adding images and taking into considerations of people with criminal records's special privacy cases.

Evaluate an article (Article 2 - Medical Privacy)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Medical privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: There was a saying in Chinese that "The concept of gender doesn't exist when it comes to save life," which reflects an everlasting conflict between getting healthcare services and protecting one's privacy. This page "Medical Privacy" describes how privacy and healthcare treatment are balanced in our modern society. It is an important topic that is worthy of evaluation.

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 first paragraph of the lead has given an introduction which concisely described the definition of "Medical Privacy. " All the content in the lead is expanded and elaborated in the following sections. A table of content has provided a clear structure and hyperlinks, directing the readers to each body section. In general, the lead section's length is well balanced (neither too short nor overly detailed).

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content 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 article first discussed the relevant concepts of medical privacy and later expanded on each country's legal system of privacy protection. These content are all relevant to the topic of "Medical Privacy". The content is mostly up to date since there are some cited sources produced in these recent three years. In general, there is no content that does not belong to the topic, but I would suggest the contributors to elaborate more on the "Privacy for Research Participant" section. Although a link of the main page is given, this section is underdeveloped. In addition, I think the article could address the medical privacy of the marginalized groups (people with disabilities, mental issues, or other severe infectious diseases etc).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a neutral tone which does not intend to persuade the readers. The contributors did not take any specific positions or add any personal judgements. No first person pronounces have appeared in the article. The content of the article is presented as facts instead of opinions.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article 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
All the facts in the article is followed by a citation (the sources are reliable academic reports and official government statement etc). Sources are from a wide spectrum of time ranging from the past 20 years to current. Links are mostly working (what I clicked have all worked properly). The authors of the sources are academic researchers and government officials specializing in law etc, which are also considered as reliable.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
As stated in the content evaluation, the article follows a logical structure: expanding from medical privacy to different countries' privacy protection mechanism. It concise and easy to read for the audiences. No grammatical and spelling errors are found in the article (I can't say there is absolutely no errors, but minor errors would not negatively affect reading). In general, this article is well-organized -- the body sections and its sub-sections are reasonably broken down.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
There are three images included in the article, with all of them well-captioned. All the images have licenses that have meet the criteria of Wikipedia copyright regulations. The images could be a little bigger to be more visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article belongs to WikiProject Medicine and it is rated as Start Class. In the talk page, the contributors have discussed about adding the "see also" section and "Australia" sub-sections into the article. In addition, this page has passed the criteria of peer review and some external links have been modified.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
In general, this article is well researched. The tone is neutral and non-persuasive. All the facts are supported by reliable sources. The structure of the article is clear and easy to follow, with each body sections reasonably broken down. Although the article is well developed as it follows a logical order, the section "Privacy for Research Participants" can be elaborated more. Furthermore, this article could address the privacy of marginalized patient groups (such as people with disabilities or mental issues etc).

Week 4 assignment
My topic is electronic commerce modeling language. The reason why I am creating this new article is because electronic commerce has became one of the major ways people purchase a product. Understanding how customers' information is transferred between systems is very important to us and the public.

Possible Outline(subject to change):

- Lead section (define electronic commerce modeling langauge)

- Body section:

1. Its developer

2. Its application

- Bibliography

= Electronic Commerce Modeling Language - 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.

As a standard developed by the alliance, 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). On the other hand, ECML deals with sensitive information such as credit card numbers and home addresses -- its data security is controversial, and privacy considerations should be taken.

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


 * American Express (www.americanexpress.com>
 * AOL (www.aol.com)
 * Brodia (www.brodia.com)
 * Compaq (www.compaq.com)
 * CyberCash (www.cybercash.com)
 * Discover (www.discovercard.com)
 * FSTC (www.fstc.org)
 * IBM (www.ibm.com)
 * Mastercard (www.mastercard.com)
 * Microsoft (www.microsoft.com)
 * Novell (www.novell.com>
 * SETCo (www.setco.org)
 * Sun Microsystems (www.sun.com)
 * Trintech (www.trintech.com>
 * 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 25% to 75% 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.

ECML and Customer's Privacy Expectations
The application of ECML requires the online shoppers to disclose their personal information which includes financial, shipping, billing, and preference details. According to relevant research, customers are able to categorize the level of risks associated with different types of information disclosure. Among the information that is required to complete an online order, the user's home address is categorized as secure identifiers which is perceived as the most sensitive by customers. Furthermore, another empirical study has pointed out customers' consistent privacy expectation --- even they have revealed personal information in exchange for services, their expectation of privacy protection is unlikely to change. Firms that adopt to ECML should undertake the responsibility and regulate themselves to actively protect the information collected during transactions.

Privacy Considerations and Suggestions
Electronic Commerce Modeling Language is consistent with Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P), a controversial protocol which addresses online privacy concern. Initially, P3P is designed to simplify users' access and understanding on privacy policies posted on the websites. It has employed a multiple choice format to make connections between human readable privacy notices and privacy policies, as well as offering agents conduct policy evaluations. On the other side, some studies have also argued that P3P has made users' private information more vulnerable. The platform is accused for its exclusive nature that would disadvantage non-compliant websites with good privacy practices, and its lack of privacy policies' enforcements.

Although the developers of electronic commerce modeling language have not explicitly specified how the information can be safely stored and protected, object security protocols (include XML encryption and XMLDsig), and channel security are all possible ways of privacy protection.

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.
 * 3) Users need to have control of whether the stored sensitive information is released or not.

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.

Content evaluation
Overall good job so far! Good start! You need to add more sections like my suggestions above about identity theft, potential uses, etc.

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.

Tone and balance evaluation
Your tone is pretty neutral but be sure to talk about privacy concerns more and the drawbacks of ECML!

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

Sources and references evaluation
Good sources so far! Your sources are academic and relevant.

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.

Organization evaluation
I would add more sections and group them by topics: ECML description, then its applications and examples of ECML, then drawbacks of ECML, and maybe finally current research being done on ECML and potential future/further research.

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!

Overall evaluation
Good start! Make sure to organize your article and wrote more sections! Include more sources too!

Lead
The lead is concise! It surveys the topic's main topics.

Content
The content is relevant and up-to-date, with the most recent source being from 2020.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

Sources and References
The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. You could and should add more sources (you have six currently). That would also help diversify the authors even more. I checked a few of the links, which work.

Organization
The article is well-written. It does not contain many grammatical and contains no spelling errors. The content is well-organized.

Copy-edits:

General tip: your section titles do not have to be capitalized after the first word.

"ECML and Customer Dropout Behaviors" Section:

Capitalize "language" in "Electronic Commerce Modeling language."

"Information does not has to be manually entered into the system." -- Change "has" to "have."

"Privacy Considerations and Suggestions" Section:

Move citation after the period in "P3P has made users' private information more vulnerable."

Isn't the "electronic commerce modeling language" in "Although the developers of electronic commerce modeling language have not explicitly specified how the information" supposed to be capitalized?

This is a sentence fragment: "Since ECML is an application related with sensitive information such as credit card numbers and home addresses." You can fix this by deleting "Since."

Images and Media
There are no pictures, but you should try to find some to make your article more visually appealing!

For New Articles Only
This article meets WIkipedia's Notability requirements. The sources could be more exhaustive, but it's a good start with six sources! The article links to other articles, which is great!

Overall impressions
You've written a neutral, concise, and clear article so far! Expand your content and add more sources and media. Keep up the good work!