User:Quackdon/sandbox

Lead:
A man-on-the-side attack is a form of active attack in computer security, where attackers are able to read the traffic, intercept messages and embed malwares. The attacker relies on a timing advantage to make sure that the response he sends to the request of a victim arrives before the legitimate response. In 2015, China suffered a github man on the side attack and the Russian Threat Group might have conceived a similar attack in 2019. Measures can be adopted to mitigate the risk of such cyber attacks.

Definition:
Man-on-the-side has become a more familiarized term after Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA’s quantum insert project. Man-on-the-side attack involves a cyber-attacker in a conversation between two people or two parties who are communicating online. The cyber-attacker is able to intercept and inject messages into the communication between the two parties. However, the cyber-attacker isn’t able to remove any signals on communication channels. Man-on-the-side attack can be applied to websites while retrieving online file downloads. The cyber-attacker is able to receive signals and preform the attack through a satellite. As long as they have a satellite dish in the place their residing in, they will be able to read transmissions and receive signals. Satellites tend to have high latency, which gives the cyber attacker enough time to send their injected response to the victim before the actual response from one party reaches the other through the satellite link. Therefore, this is the reason why an attacker relies on timing advantage.

The main difference between man-on-the-middle attack and man-on-the-side-attack is that man-on-the-middle attackers are able to intercept and block messages and signals from transmitting, whilst man-on-the-side attackers are able to intercept and inject messages and signals before the other party receives a legitimate response.

Since man-on-the-side attack requires a strong timing advantage, a reason to why people use Man-on-the-side attack may be explained through their psychological behaviour. Faculty Member from the University of Stavanger, Maria Kjaerland, conducted an exploration study to examine the relationship between different cyber offences and psychological behaviours. She concluded that web compromise is a common activity for hackers attacking targets for challenge because it relies on attackers having accurate timing in leaving messages victims. They can be easily caught if the timing is incorrect and will not be able to make up for it. Therefore, this challenge bears higher consequences amongst other types of attacks. Therefore,  Similarly, man-on-the-side attack also require attackers to rely on having time advantage in order to retrieving and modifying information from victims without them realising or determining what the hacker has done.

Russia
In 2019, it was reported that man-on-the-side attack might have been conceived by the Russian Threat Group through installing Malwares. When victim used the internet and requested to download a file at a particular website, man-on-the-side attackers who were present were aware that the victims were attempting to download the file. Since the man-in-the-side attackers weren’t able to prohibit the victim from downloading the file, what they could do was to intercept the server and send a signal to the victim before the victim received a legitimate response, which was the requested download file. The attacker then intercepted and sent the victims a message that directed them to a 302 error site, which led the victim to think that the file has been removed or it simply cannot be downloaded. However, even though the victim would receive a legitimate response from the website file download, since their servers were already contaminated, they wouldn’t have been able to view the legitimate website and file sine they received a so called proper response from the attacking team. At the 302 error site, the attacking team directed the victims to an alternative website to download the files they wanted to, which the attacking team controlled and ran. When the victim connected to the attacking team’s server, not known to their knowledge, they would start downloading the file because on the victim’s screen, it shows that this site is working and they can finally download the file. However, the attacking team had already found the original file from the legitimate website and modified the file to include pieces of malwares and sent the file back to the victim. Therefore, when the victim clicked on the link and started downloading the file, they were already downloading a file that consisted of malwares.

China
In 2015, the two Github repositories suffered a flooded attack due to man-on-the-side attack. When a user outside of China attempts to browse a Chinese website, they are required to pass the Chinese Internet Infrastructure before automatically being directed to the website. The infrastructure allowed the request to the legitimate Chinese website the user wanted to browse to without any modifications involved. The response came back from the website, but as it passed through the Chinese Internet Infrastructure, before it could get back to the user, the response had been modified. The modification involved a malware that changed the Baidu analytics script from only accessing Baidu to the user-making request to access the two Github Repositories as they continued browse the website. The user, who was able to continue browsing the Chinese search engine, Baidu, were innocent since they were absolutely unaware of the fact that their response involved an embedded malicious script, which would make a request to access Github on the side. This happened to all users outside of china who was trying to seek access to a Chinese website, which resulted in extremely high volumes of requests being made to the two Github Repositories. The enormous load Github had to bear had caused the server to flood and was thus attacked.

Ways to prevent and mitigate attacks (Micro)
1.     Get an Insurance coverage

If a malware is detected that results in you losing your data stored,  it may be financially affected. Insurance coverage ensures that you’re financial losses are covered. This is beneficial for companies because losses to consumers or businesses impacted may result in millions and billions of dollars of losses, or even face bankruptcies. In 2017, the NotPetya cyber attack caused companies to suffer a 10billion in worldwide damage.

2.     Familiarising with Malware products

An observational study conducted has concluded that although many people acknowledge the need in downloading malware defence products, many people aren’t familiar with the functions of it and how it helps protects users from being exposed to attacks. For example, many users ignore the software notification alert message when downloading potentially harmful files, which makes them more susceptible to attacks. Therefore, users should use the malware defence products effectively to prevent unnecessary successful cyber-attacks.

3 Acknowledging different types of cyber attacks

In the software cybersecurity market, there are many different types of malware defence products. It is essential to gain a holistic view of the risks associated with cyber attacks so users purchase the most effective malware defence software. The three main pillars of the risks are threat type, likelihood of occurrence score, Vulnerability. The relationships between the three pillars of risks are as follows. If the threat is low, suggesting that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, attacker requires of a low level of IT skills, thus, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be high. On the other hand, if the threat is high, meaning that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be low. It is important to acknowledge what kind of data and information you aim to protect and purchase the malware software accordingly. Since Man-on-the-side attack relies on accurate timing, it is considered to have a high threat but low likelihood of occurrence and vulnerability. Therefore, the extent to which households need to purchase malware defences to prevent man-on-the-side attack wouldn’t be necessary.

Ways to prevent or mitigate attacks (Macro - Nation level response)
1 Promoting digital safety and security through knowledge, skills and innovation

The government should urge technological firms to preform advance research and development to produce safe digital technologies and safe digital infrastructures. This could enhance the safe and secure digital practices at all levels of society. For example in Austria, this is one of the main strategies that the government aims to adopt the security technology development. R&D may include developing and strengthening cyber-security programmes and provide trainings for the emergence of cyber-security experts.

2 Enhancing Crisis Response

As technology advances, there are simultaneously greater varieties of attacks that occur. Governments are encouraged to go beyond their understanding from professional and educational knowledge and to exercise a contingency plan through simulated cyber incidents to gauge a practical level of preparedness. Therefore, this enhances the government’s resilience in mitigating and adapting to risks posed by cyber attacks. The government must be aware of the budget allocated in anti virus software since they have different functionalities and should draw a balance between the sophistication, risk and vulnerability of the attack since it impacts the likelihood of an attack.

Lead:
A man-on-the-side attack is a form of active attack in computer security, where attackers are able to read the traffic, intercept messages and embed malwares. The attacker relies on a timing advantage to make sure that the response he sends to the request of a victim arrives before the legitimate response. In 2015, China suffered a github man on the side attack and the Russian Threat Group might have conceived a similar attack in 2019. Measures can be adopted to mitigate the risk of such cyber attacks.

Definition:
Man-on-the-side has become a more familiarized term after Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA’s quantum insert project. Man-on-the-side attack involves a cyber-attacker in a conversation between two people or two parties who are communicating online. The cyber-attacker is able to intercept and inject messages into the communication between the two parties. However, the cyber-attacker isn’t able to remove any signals on communication channels. Man-on-the-side attack can be applied to websites while retrieving online file downloads. The cyber-attacker is able to receive signals and preform the attack through a satellite. As long as they have a satellite dish in the place their residing in, they will be able to read transmissions and receive signals. Satellites tend to have high latency, which gives the cyber attacker enough time to send their injected response to the victim before the actual response from one party reaches the other through the satellite link. Therefore, this is the reason why an attacker relies on timing advantage.

The main difference between man-on-the-middle attack and man-on-the-side-attack is that man-on-the-middle attackers are able to intercept and block messages and signals from transmitting, whilst man-on-the-side attackers are able to intercept and inject messages and signals before the other party receives a legitimate response.

Since man-on-the-side attack requires a strong timing advantage, a reason to why people use Man-on-the-side attack may be explained through their psychological behaviour. Faculty Member from the University of Stavanger, Maria Kjaerland, conducted an exploration study to examine the relationship between different cyber offences and psychological behaviours. She concluded that web compromise is a common activity for hackers attacking targets for challenge because it relies on attackers having accurate timing in leaving messages victims. They can be easily caught if the timing is incorrect and will not be able to make up for it. Therefore, this challenge bears higher consequences amongst other types of attacks. Therefore,  Similarly, man-on-the-side attack also require attackers to rely on having time advantage in order to retrieving and modifying information from victims without them realising or determining what the hacker has done.

Russia
In 2019, it was reported that man-on-the-side attack might have been conceived by the Russian Threat Group through installing Malwares. When victim used the internet and requested to download a file at a particular website, man-on-the-side attackers who were present were aware that the victims were attempting to download the file. Since the man-in-the-side attackers weren’t able to prohibit the victim from downloading the file, what they could do was to intercept the server and send a signal to the victim before the victim received a legitimate response, which was the requested download file. The attacker then intercepted and sent the victims a message that directed them to a 302 error site, which led the victim to think that the file has been removed or it simply cannot be downloaded. However, even though the victim would receive a legitimate response from the website file download, since their servers were already contaminated, they wouldn’t have been able to view the legitimate website and file sine they received a so called proper response from the attacking team. At the 302 error site, the attacking team directed the victims to an alternative website to download the files they wanted to, which the attacking team controlled and ran. When the victim connected to the attacking team’s server, not known to their knowledge, they would start downloading the file because on the victim’s screen, it shows that this site is working and they can finally download the file. However, the attacking team had already found the original file from the legitimate website and modified the file to include pieces of malwares and sent the file back to the victim. Therefore, when the victim clicked on the link and started downloading the file, they were already downloading a file that consisted of malwares.

China
In 2015, the two Github repositories suffered a flooded attack due to man-on-the-side attack. When a user outside of China attempts to browse a Chinese website, they are required to pass the Chinese Internet Infrastructure before automatically being directed to the website. The infrastructure allowed the request to the legitimate Chinese website the user wanted to browse to without any modifications involved. The response came back from the website, but as it passed through the Chinese Internet Infrastructure, before it could get back to the user, the response had been modified. The modification involved a malware that changed the Baidu analytics script from only accessing Baidu to the user-making request to access the two Github Repositories as they continued browse the website. The user, who was able to continue browsing the Chinese search engine, Baidu, were innocent since they were absolutely unaware of the fact that their response involved an embedded malicious script, which would make a request to access Github on the side. This happened to all users outside of china who was trying to seek access to a Chinese website, which resulted in extremely high volumes of requests being made to the two Github Repositories. The enormous load Github had to bear had caused the server to flood and was thus attacked.

Ways to prevent and mitigate attacks (Micro)
1.     Get an Insurance coverage

If a malware is detected that results in you losing your data stored,  it may be financially affected. Insurance coverage ensures that you’re financial losses are covered. This is beneficial for companies because losses to consumers or businesses impacted may result in millions and billions of dollars of losses, or even face bankruptcies. In 2017, the NotPetya cyber attack caused companies to suffer a 10billion in worldwide damage.

2.     Familiarising with Malware products

An observational study conducted has concluded that although many people acknowledge the need in downloading malware defence products, many people aren’t familiar with the functions of it and how it helps protects users from being exposed to attacks. For example, many users ignore the software notification alert message when downloading potentially harmful files, which makes them more susceptible to attacks. Therefore, users should use the malware defence products effectively to prevent unnecessary successful cyber-attacks.

3 Acknowledging different types of cyber attacks

In the software cybersecurity market, there are many different types of malware defence products. It is essential to gain a holistic view of the risks associated with cyber attacks so users purchase the most effective malware defence software. The three main pillars of the risks are threat type, likelihood of occurrence score, Vulnerability. The relationships between the three pillars of risks are as follows. If the threat is low, suggesting that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, attacker requires of a low level of IT skills, thus, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be high. On the other hand, if the threat is high, meaning that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be low. It is important to acknowledge what kind of data and information you aim to protect and purchase the malware software accordingly. Since Man-on-the-side attack relies on accurate timing, it is considered to have a high threat but low likelihood of occurrence and vulnerability. Therefore, the extent to which households need to purchase malware defences to prevent man-on-the-side attack wouldn’t be necessary.

Ways to prevent or mitigate attacks (Macro - Nation level response)
1 Promoting digital safety and security through knowledge, skills and innovation

The government should urge technological firms to preform advance research and development to produce safe digital technologies and safe digital infrastructures. This could enhance the safe and secure digital practices at all levels of society. For example in Austria, this is one of the main strategies that the government aims to adopt the security technology development. R&D may include developing and strengthening cyber-security programmes and provide trainings for the emergence of cyber-security experts. (cite)

2 Enhancing Crisis Response

As technology advances, there are simultaneously greater varieties of attacks that occur. Governments are encouraged to go beyond their understanding from professional and educational knowledge and to exercise a contingency plan through simulated cyber incidents to gauge a practical level of preparedness. (cite) Therefore, this enhances the government’s resilience in mitigating and adapting to risks posed by cyber attacks. The government must be aware of the budget allocated in anti virus software since they have different functionalities and should draw a balance between the sophistication, risk and vulnerability of the attack since it impacts the likelihood of an attack. (cite)

Lead:
A man-on-the-side attack is a form of active attack in computer security, where attackers are able to read the traffic, intercept messages and embed malwares. The attacker relies on a timing advantage to make sure that the response he sends to the request of a victim arrives before the legitimate response. In 2015, China suffered a github man on the side attack and the Russian Threat Group might have conceived a similar attack in 2019.

Definition:
Man-on-the-side has become a more familiarised term after Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA’s quantum insert project. Man-on-the-side attack involves a cyber-attacker in a conversation between two people or two parties who are communicating online. The cyber-attacker is able to intercept and inject messages into the communication between the two parties. However, the cyber-attacker isn’t able to remove any signals on communication channels. Man-on-the-side attack can be applied to websites while retrieving online file downloads. The cyber-attacker is able to receive signals and preform the attack through a satellite. As long as they have a satellite dish in the place their residing in, they will be able to read transmissions and receive signals. Satellites tend to have high latency, which gives the cyber attacker enough time to send their injected response to the victim before the actual response from one party reaches the other through the satellite link. Therefore, this is the reason why an attacker relies on timing advantage.

The main difference between man-on-the-middle attack and man-on-the-side-attack is that man-on-the-middle attackers are able to intercept and block messages and signals from transmitting, whilst man-on-the-side attackers are able to intercept and inject messages and signals before the other party receives a legitimate response.

Since man-on-the-side attack requires a strong timing advantage, a reason to why people use Man-on-the-side attack may be explained through their psychological behaviour. Faculty Member from the University of Stavanger, Maria Kjaerland, conducted an exploration study to examine the relationship between different cyber offences and psychological behaviours. She concluded that web compromise is a common activity for hackers attacking targets for challenge because it relies on attackers having accurate timing in leaving messages victims. They can be easily caught if the timing is incorrect and will not be able to make up for it. Therefore, this challenge bears higher consequences amongst other types of attacks. Therefore,  Similarly, man-on-the-side attack also require attackers to rely on having time advantage in order to retrieving and modifying information from victims without them realising or determining what the hacker has done.

Russia
In 2019, it was reported that man-on-the-side attack might have been conceived by the Russian Threat Group through installing Malwares. When victim used the internet and requested to download a file at a particular website, man-on-the-side attackers who were present were aware that the victims were attempting to download the file. Since the man-in-the-side attackers weren’t able to prohibit the victim from downloading the file, what they could do was to intercept the server and send a signal to the victim before the victim received a legitimate response, which was the requested download file. The attacker then intercepted and sent the victims a message that directed them to a 302 error site, which led the victim to think that the file has been removed or it simply cannot be downloaded. However, even though the victim would receive a legitimate response from the website file download, since their servers were already contaminated, they wouldn’t have been able to view the legitimate website and file sine they received a so called proper response from the attacking team. At the 302 error site, the attacking team directed the victims to an alternative website to download the files they wanted to, which the attacking team controlled and ran. When the victim connected to the attacking team’s server, not known to their knowledge, they would start downloading the file because on the victim’s screen, it shows that this site is working and they can finally download the file. However, the attacking team had already found the original file from the legitimate website and modified the file to include pieces of malwares and sent the file back to the victim. Therefore, when the victim clicked on the link and started downloading the file, they were already downloading a file that consisted of malwares.

China
In 2015, the two Github repositories suffered a flooded attack due to man-on-the-side attack. When a user outside of China attempts to browse a Chinese website, they are required to pass the Chinese Internet Infrastructure before automatically being directed to the website. The infrastructure allowed the request to the legitimate Chinese website the user wanted to browse to without any modifications involved. The response came back from the website, but as it passed through the Chinese Internet Infrastructure, before it could get back to the user, the response had been modified. The modification involved a malware that changed the Baidu analytics script from only accessing Baidu to the user-making request to access the two Github Repositories as they continued browse the website. The user, who was able to continue browsing the Chinese search engine, Baidu, were innocent since they were absolutely unaware of the fact that their response involved an embedded malicious script, which would make a request to access Github on the side. This happened to all users outside of china who was trying to seek access to a Chinese website, which resulted in extremely high volumes of requests being made to the two Github Repositories. The enormous load Github had to bear had caused the server to flood and was thus attacked.

Ways to prevent and mitigate attacks (Micro)
1.     Get an Insurance coverage

If a malware is detected that results in you losing your data stored,  it may be financially affected. Insurance coverage ensures that you’re financial losses are covered. This is beneficial for companies because losses to consumers or businesses impacted may result in millions and billions of dollars of losses, or even face bankruptcies. In 2017, the NotPetya cyber attack caused companies to suffer a 10billion in worldwide damage.

2.     Familiarising with Malware products

An observational study conducted has concluded that although many people acknowledge the need in downloading malware defence products, many people aren’t familiar with the functions of it and how it helps protects users from being exposed to attacks. For example, many users ignore the software notification alert message when downloading potentially harmful files, which makes them more susceptible to attacks. Therefore, users should use the malware defence products effectively to prevent unnecessary successful cyber-attacks.

3 Acknowledging different types of cyber attacks

In the software cybersecurity market, there are many different types of malware defence products. It is essential to gain a holistic view of the risks associated with cyber attacks so users purchase the most effective malware defence software. The three main pillars of the risks are threat type, likelihood of occurrence score, Vulnerability. The relationships between the three pillars of risks are as follows. If the threat is low, suggesting that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, attacker requires of a low level of IT skills, thus, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be high. On the other hand, if the threat is high, meaning that attacking results in a limited affect on a micro and macro scale, the vulnerability and the likelihood of the attack would be low. It is important to acknowledge what kind of data and information you aim to protect and purchase the malware software accordingly. Since Man-on-the-side attack relies on accurate timing, it is considered to have a high threat but low likelihood of occurrence and vulnerability. Therefore, the extent to which households need to purchase malware defences to prevent man-on-the-side attack wouldn’t be necessary.

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi Quackdon! Great job on your article and I really enjoyed learning about Man-on-the-side attack. Here are some feedback and suggestions as you polish up your article:


 * Keep in mind about the various sections. I'm sure you have thought about this already but make use of the various heading and sub-headings to make the organization of the article clear. It was a bit difficult to visually see the organization of the article because most of the headings looked similar.
 * Continue adding citations to your article. I see that you have already added some citations but make sure that your final draft has cited all 20 of the articles from your annotations.
 * Keep any formatting and capitalizations consistent. I think Github was not capitalized in the lead section but it is capitalized in a later paragraph so just make sure to maintain the same capitalization throughout your article

Overall great progress and looking forward to reading the final article!

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? QuackDon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Man-on-the-side attack

Lead[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
The Lead is concise and information are relevant to the topic.

Content[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
The content is accurate and up to date. No gaps in this article, and no irrelevant content.

Tone and Balance[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
The content is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
The new content is backed up by multiple reliable sources of information.

Organization[edit]
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[edit]
The content is error free.

Images and Media[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
There are no images.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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[edit][edit][edit]
There can be more sources added.

Overall impressions[edit]
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[edit]
The content are pretty well written, but can also add more sources.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? QuackDon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Man-on-the-side attack

Lead[edit]
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[edit]
Lead is concise, covers topics of article. There are things in the lead of the original article that aren't in your lead. Are you planning on moving the info? If so, mention those topics in your lead as well.

Content[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
Content is neutral and unbiased.

Sources and References[edit]
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[edit]
Not enough sources. Don't see list of sources at bottom?

Organization[edit]
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[edit]
The content is well written. There was one spelling error but I corrected it.

Images and Media[edit]
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[edit]
There are no images.

For New Articles Only[edit]
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[edit]
The article has 2-3 new sources. It has at least 4 sources currently and needs more patterns such as section headings.

Overall impressions[edit]
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? I though Content elaborated on lead very well.
 * How can the content added be improved? I only saw one source.

Overall evaluation[edit]
More sources.

Peer review(Niangao)
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)Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?concise

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?no
 * 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?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, the article is already supported by 7 reliable secondary sources, moreover, it also includes link to other wiki articles

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

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


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

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?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?the content added more completes the article by developing the Preventing Attacks section. The new draft includes not only the micro but also the macro part of the ways to prevent and mitigate attacks. This makes the article more neutral on content as well.


 * How can the content added be improved?

Peer review (Bunnyshampoo)
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) Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Quackdon/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation: The lead is concise and briefly touches on some topics in the article. Github isn't capitalized here, but is on other sections.

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 and is up to date. This does not seem to include all the annotations we have done.

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 tone seems to be neutral. The last sentence of the article might be seen as an opinion though.

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 only 2 sources and there is no links when clicking on them.

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: It is clear with some grammatical errors, however I am not familiar with British English.

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/media on this Wiki

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 two citations. I recommend links to other articles for keywords to increase discoverability and ease of reading.

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 the article is on the right path, but needs more content using the annotations we've done. Also I suggest links to other wikipages and add some images. I saw some improvements through more content and had more sources compared to draft 1.

Peer review (Sauceboss12)
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) Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Quackdon/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

The lead is concise. While it covers the major section of china it does not for Russia, I would recommend changing it to more general statement which covers both. Additionally, there is gendered language in the use of “he” which shouldn’t be there

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?

The content seems to be up to date and relevant to the topic. this being said it does not have a lot of sources.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

The tone of the article is neutral, however the way in which preventing attacks seems to be biased pointing the reading in favor of certain solutions.
 * 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?

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?

There is a lack of links to click on and there are not a lot of sources. This being said the sources are current and seem to be on a diverse spectrum of authors

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?

The organization is a bit of a mess. There is an incorrect use of subheading and internal lists within subsections. I would recommend getting rid of the numbers and making them sub sub sections. Additionally there is the random example subsection which has no content under it and feels redundant

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

NA
 * 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?

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?

Article contains 8 secondary sources, which is >2-3 but does not seem to represent all available literature on the subject. This article needs more links to other articles. This article does not follow patterns of similar Wikipedia articles( see organization comment)

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?

I think the strong suit of this essay is the strong suit of this article is the content on Russia and china. The content can be improved by adding more sources as well as correcting the organization to be in line with the format of Wikipedia.

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? Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Quackdon/Man-on-the-side attack However, the draft isn't there. So, I am referencing the article page

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? N/A
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It may be a little detailed. Perhaps some information could go into another section.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone is relatively neutral
 * 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? Yes, 2013-2020
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes; No
 * 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
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None discovered
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?N/A

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? I believe so
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Not much because of content
 * 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? No section headings and such because only lead section
 * 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? It is written rather objectively
 * How can the content added be improved? Information could be moved to sections

Assigned Article - Man-on-the-side-attack Draft 1
The Man on the side attack article is rarely new and it only consists of an introduction to the topic. I plan to break down the themes mentioned in the introduction to expand on my development of the article.

Improving an article

What’s missing from the article:

·      Relationship between time accuracy and performing an attack

·      Introduction to different types of malware

·      How to prevent these kind of attacks (what to do with internet backbone)

o   Journal article: “Technological and Human Factors of Malware Attacks”

·      What kind of infrastructure aid man-on-the-side attack?

Outline of additional sections:

·      Specific steps of preforming a-man-of-the-side-attack

·      A detailed recount of a case study (local network, international network)

·      Psychology behind man-on-the-side attack

o   Journal article: "A Classification Of Computer Security Incidents Based On Reported Attack Data."

·      Comparison between man on the side attack and man on the middle attack

o   Is there an easier way?

o   Man-on-the-side attack relies more on accuracy timing

·      Consequences of man on the side attack – society / nation level

o   How is a nation effected

o   Is there Case study of protests

o   Government response / policies to comply

·      Surveillance - Geo-political risks that arises.

o   International level

o   Sanctions implemented

Lead:
A man-on-the-side attack is a form of active attack in computer security, where attackers are able to read the traffic, intercept messages and embed malwares. The attacker relies on a timing advantage to make sure that the response he sends to the request of a victim arrives before the legitimate response. In 2015, China suffered a github man on the side attack and the Russian Threat Group might have conceived a similar attack in 2019.

Definition:
Man-on-the-side has become a more familiarised term after Edward Snowden leaked information about the NSA’s quantum insert project. Man-on-the-side attack involves a cyber-attacker in a conversation between two people or two parties who are communicating online. The cyber-attacker is able to intercept and inject messages into the communication between the two parties. However, the cyber-attacker isn’t able to remove any signals on communication channels. Man-on-the-side attack can be applied to websites while retrieving online file downloads. The cyber-attacker is able to receive signals and preform the attack through a satellite. As long as they have a satellite dish in the place their residing in, they will be able to read transmissions and receive signals. Satellites tend to have high latency, which gives the cyber attacker enough time to send their injected response to the victim before the actual response from one party reaches the other through the satellite link. Therefore, this is the reason why an attacker relies on timing advantage.

The main difference between man-on-the-middle attack and man-on-the-side-attack is that man-on-the-middle attackers are able to intercept and block messages and signals from transmitting, whilst man-on-the-side attackers are able to intercept and inject messages and signals before the other party receives a legitimate response.

Since man-on-the-side attack requires a strong timing advantage, a reason to why people use Man-on-the-side attack may be explained through their psychological behaviour. Faculty Member from the University of Stavanger, Maria Kjaerland, conducted an exploration study to examine the relationship between different cyber offences and psychological behaviours. She concluded that web compromise is a common activity for hackers attacking targets for challenge because it relies on attackers having accurate timing in leaving messages victims. They can be easily caught if the timing is incorrect and will not be able to make up for it. Therefore, this challenge bears higher consequences amongst other types of attacks. Therefore,  Similarly, man-on-the-side attack also require attackers to rely on having time advantage in order to retrieving and modifying information from victims without them realising or determining what the hacker has done.

Russia
In 2019, it was reported that man-on-the-side attack might have been conceived by the Russian Threat Group through installing Malwares. When victim used the internet and requested to download a file at a particular website, man-on-the-side attackers who were present were aware that the victims were attempting to download the file. Since the man-in-the-side attackers weren’t able to prohibit the victim from downloading the file, what they could do was to intercept the server and send a signal to the victim before the victim received a legitimate response, which was the requested download file. The attacker then intercepted and sent the victims a message that directed them to a 302 error site, which led the victim to think that the file has been removed or it simply cannot be downloaded. However, even though the victim would receive a legitimate response from the website file download, since their servers were already contaminated, they wouldn’t have been able to view the legitimate website and file sine they received a so called proper response from the attacking team. At the 302 error site, the attacking team directed the victims to an alternative website to download the files they wanted to, which the attacking team controlled and ran. When the victim connected to the attacking team’s server, not known to their knowledge, they would start downloading the file because on the victim’s screen, it shows that this site is working and they can finally download the file. However, the attacking team had already found the original file from the legitimate website and modified the file to include pieces of malwares and sent the file back to the victim. Therefore, when the victim clicked on the link and started downloading the file, they were already downloading a file that consisted of malwares.

China
In 2015, the two Github repositories suffered a flooded attack due to man-on-the-side attack. When a user outside of China attempts to browse a Chinese website, they are required to pass the Chinese Internet Infrastructure before automatically being directed to the website. The infrastructure allowed the request to the legitimate Chinese website the user wanted to browse to without any modifications involved. The response came back from the website, but as it passed through the Chinese Internet Infrastructure, before it could get back to the user, the response had been modified. The modification involved a malware that changed the Baidu analytics script from only accessing Baidu to the user-making request to access the two Github Repositories as they continued browse the website. The user, who was able to continue browsing the Chinese search engine, Baidu, were innocent since they were absolutely unaware of the fact that their response involved an embedded malicious script, which would make a request to access Github on the side. This happened to all users outside of china who was trying to seek access to a Chinese website, which resulted in extremely high volumes of requests being made to the two Github Repositories. The enormous load Github had to bear had caused the server to flood and was thus attacked.

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Information privacy + Privacy in education
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose to write about Privacy in education because I viewed a wikipedia article about politics in education. I am curious to know what privacy in education entails.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Y
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The lead included an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic and gives a brief overview of what the article is going to cover throughout. It also included the different themes it'll go over such as dissemination of data, technology...etc. A contents bar really helps with sorting out the different themes and headings. Although the first paragraph was a general overview of the entire article and the writer didn't include all information on the header, he summarised it using a sentence. The lead is concise.

Privacy in education

The lead included an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic and gives a brief overview of what the article is going to cover throughout. It also included the different themes it'll go over such as expectation of privacy, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the Fourth Amendment, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). However, the order of the list doens't necessarily reflect the list the writer's going to go through. For example, HIPPA doesn't owe a paragraph, it is under the paragraph 'medical'. This may be a little confusing if they only want to read more about HIPPA. The lead is concise.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Y
 * Is the content up-to-date? Y, since it was last edited in Aug 2019. However, sources used ranged from 1980 - 2002.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? If there was a wider scope of content, it'll enhance the quality of the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is sufficient and is up to date from the perspective that there's a wide scope. The information types paragraph includes a lot of different categories about where personal information is often associated with privacy concerns, but it can always be expanded and updated. The article doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Privacy in education

The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is sufficient and is up to date. I appreciate how the writer gave he parameters of what privacy in education is, which really lays out the groundwork for the reader in terms of what the topic is exactly about. The article doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics. There aren't missing content or content that doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


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

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The article is neutral and there aren't claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. It is because this article is fairly factual as each paragraph is short and concise and only talks about information privacy. Moreover, there are many lists in the page that informs the audience about information privacy, which avoids creating a biased tone. Therefore, it doesn't seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another, rather serves as an article for readers to be exposed to what information is.

Privacy in education

The article is neutral and there aren't claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The headers gave the reader a clear indication of what the paragraph under the header would look like. This allowed paragraphs to be focused and succinct and thus avoided adopting a biased tone. It doesn't seem to attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another.

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Y, there are citations and hyperlinks.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Y, literature reviews and books.
 * Are the sources current? No
 * 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[edit]
Information Privacy

All facts are backed up through citation and hyperlinks. Sources, written by a diverse spectrum of authors, include literature reviews and books which provide an overview of the literature and are current. The hyperlink works.

Privacy in education

All facts are backed up through citation and hyperlinks. Sources, written by a diverse spectrum of authors, include literature reviews and books which provide an overview of the literature and are current. It also contains a wide range of sources in terms of year, up to 2017. The hyperlink works.

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Easy to read but may expand more to include a wider scope.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into paragraphs, which introduces different themes.

Organization evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The article is well written due to it's simplicity and clarity. It is easy to read as it breaks down paragraphs into different ideas, allowing the reader to have a better picture of the article. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors.

Privacy in education

Similar to Information Privary, the article is well written due to it's wise use of headers and paragraphs. It is easy to read as it breaks down paragraphs into different ideas with a header, allowing the reader to have a better picture of the article. However, there are slight grammatical errors: James Buckley who promoted the importance of protection and privacy of educational records of students who attended primary and secondary schooling. The connector 'who' has been over-used.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The article doesn't contain any pictures.

Privacy in education

The article doesn't contain any pictures.

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? some people have pointed out grammatical errors the writer has made but has already been edited and fixed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated mediocre due to the lack of expansion of the topic. Not part of Wiki Projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think the way the writer approached the article was similar to what we discussed in class, particularly in the citations part. Sources he used are reliable since they are mainly literature reviews and books. By having a third person evaluate your work through using talk pages and sending words of encouragement, the interactions serve as a motivation to keep writing and it's great to listen to other people's advice since our end goal is to make the page better!

Talk page evaluation[edit]
Information Privacy

The talk page consists of words of encouragement, healthy debates about specific pieces of information such as including information from another scope (information security) and a few people who pointed out grammatical errors the writer has made, though they've already been edited and fixed. I think the way the writer approached the article was similar to what we discussed in class, particularly in the citations part. Sources he used are reliable since they are mainly literature reviews and books. By having a third person evaluate your work through using talk pages and sending words of encouragement, the interactions serve as a motivation to keep writing and it's great to listen to other people's advice since our end goal is to make the page better!

Privacy in education

The talk page consists of people's update with citations and hyperlinks. A few people who pointed out grammatical errors the writer has made. Sources he used are reliable since they are mainly literature reviews and books.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * 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[edit]
Information Privacy

Although the writer has delivered an overview of what information privacy is, it can definitely improve on expanding on scope, perhaps provide examples and pictures so that the reader can have a more in depth knowledge about the topic. The different themes mentioned are broken down into paragraphs which made the article easy to follow. At the moment, the article sounds complete and is developed although more details and scope can be added in.

Privacy in education

I feel that the writer has successfully discussed what privacy of education refers to, and provided a holsitic article, since it mentioned the parameters of privacy within education, provided concrete examples and even found controversies about the topic. The article was also easy to follow owing to the strong organisational skills of using header and paragraph so the reader has a better picture of the topic. At the moment, the article sounds complete.

~

Optional activity[edit]

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Link

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: Assuming the part about the definition of Man-on-the-side attack is the article Lead; the Lead is very well written. It introduces the topic clearly and gives the reader the context they need to understand the rest of the article. Currently, the lead is missing a brief description of the article's major sections as described in the outline; and includes information not present in the article. The lead is slightly overly detailed (again, if the definition portion is the article Lead).

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 added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There are some topics that are mentioned in the outline that haven't been described yet; but the outline is very strong and covers all there is to know about the topic. There is no information that does not belong, all information is relevant. The article does not deal with any 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 added is neutral; and there aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No views are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, i.e., it is very objective and articulate.

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: Not citations have been added yet, so a list of sources and references is unavailable.

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 easy to read; and there are no visible grammatical or spelling errors. The outline shows that the content will be broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic and will be well-organized; but the current draft needs more of those sections.

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 or media has been added yet.

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


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

New Article Evaluation: The author is not working on a new article.

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 content added definitely improves the overall quality of the article and makes it more complete; since, as the author mentions, the current article on man-on-the-side attack is fairly new and consists only an introduction to the topic. The strengths of the content are that the paragraphs are the right length, and the sentences are structured in a way that provide an easy to follow flow of information. The content is also unbiased and article; i.e., the tone is "encyclopedic." The article can be improved by fleshing out the outline and adding more content relating to the topics mentioned in the outline. All the best!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? QuackDon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Man-on-the-side attack

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[edit][edit]
The Lead is concise and discusses information relevant to the topic. It has been updated with new content and is concise, specific, and easy to understand.

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[edit][edit]
There is currently sections outside of the lead, but the data presented in the lead is accurate and up to date. There are a few topics missing and examples, which can fill in holes of equity gaps and information 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[edit][edit]
The content is neutral and the claims presented are unbiased. I believe that multiple perspectives are well represented in this work.

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[edit][edit]
The new content is backed up by multiple reliable sources of information, which are through and current. The sources are diverse and accurate.

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 well written and has no grammatical errors.

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[edit][edit]
There are no 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[edit][edit]
The article has 2-3 new sources. It has at least 4 sources currently and needs more patterns such as section headings.

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 content overall is a great start, but needs more information.

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? (provide username) Quackdon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Quackdon/sandbox
 * By Moonstar0619

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? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead also includes a brief description of the article's major sections.

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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a neutral tone as there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the content is the facts about Man-on-the-side-attack instead of viewpoints.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? no
 * 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? no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? n/a

Sources and references evaluation
There are several reliable sources but there is no links to check.

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 article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-written and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of 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? n/a
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Images and media evaluation
There is no image.

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

New Article Evaluation
There are several reliable sources and I think adding links to other articles would be helpful.

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?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The lead is concise and clear, and the content added does make the article more complete. The article can be improved by adding links to sources at the bottom of the article and adding links to other articles.