User:Sfwarriors99/sandbox

Draft 3 - Hyper Surveillance
Link: Draft:Hyper-surveillance

Hyper surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens that specifically utilizes technology and security breaches to access information.

As the reliance on the internet economy grows, smarter technology with higher surveillance concerns and snooping means allow workers to have increased surveillance at their workplace. Hyper surveillance is highly targeted and intricate observation and monitoring among an individual, group of people, or faction.

History
In the middle of the 1970s, the American penal system or prison system expanded rapidly. As a result, 1 in 35 adults are in correctional supervision nationwide. The surveillance systems has created targeted and specific supervision. The use of surveillance systems has been targeted against black and Latino men. Consequently, men of color are found to be stopped by police at higher rates. For example, in some neighborhoods, police stop over 500 out of 1000 residents in their lifetime due to hyper surveillance systems.

Hyper surveillance extends beyond the crime control agents and police system as it has been documented in schools, community organizations, and other places. Research finds that hyper surveillance can lead to targeted and specific focus on an individual leading to profiling and predictive policing.

Hyper Surveillance
NOTE: Currently, no hyper surveillance pages. There are pages for mass surveillance, privacy, and protection.

Lead
Hyper Surveillance is the use of technology, internet of things, and security systems to create a surveillance profile of individuals[1]

The increase in the reliance of gig economy and Internet systems has led to increased and pin pointed surveillance. From construction workers using fingerprints to clock in employees to timesheets of bathroom breaks, companies and businesses are starting to make efforts for continuous monitoring. This could harm the working population mentally and physically. [2]

While hyper surveillance has some practical applications as monitoring employees and improving productivity, there are also concerns about how this can impact employee trust and honesty. In addition, there is growing concern for how the traditional security systems can be optimized for hyper surveillance to be further utilized.

Definition
Evolution of how Hyper Surveillance has Changed

Practical Applications
What can hyper surveillance be used for? Use cases

Impact of Hyper Surveillance
Employer Impact + Privacy Concerns

Future Uses of the Technology
Ways for improvement Hyper surveillance Article Plan I plan to create an introductory section including what hyper surveillance is and how it is different. I have an interest in privacy, security, and facial recognition systems. Therefore, I look forward to completing more research into how hyper surveillance differs from traditional security structures. An outline that I could use is: Definition Practical Applications Impact of Hyper surveillance Future Uses of the Technology

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. While I am required to evaluate this article, it is very relevant to the topic and concept.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

Lead evaluation
The lead has a proper, concise, and clear introductory sentence that accurately describes the topic as information privacy. The Lead includes a brief description of the major sections and helped to understand information privacy. It is concise and helps accurately display the information that follows in the content.

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
Overall, the information presented is relevant to the topic with the majority of sources ranging from the past five to ten years. I would recommend to re-evaluate the information presented to see if the content has changed to better evaluate and understand the information. The article is not missing content and accurately shares the information presented. The article presented does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps of representing historically underrepresented populations.

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 style by showing both the positive and negative sides. Hence, there is not bias that is inherently rooted or expressed throughout the work. There are not claims that are heavily biased toward a particular side. However, the section discussing Internet did seem to be over represented as it took up the majority of information presented in this article. The article does not try to sway the author to side with a particular group and is unbiased.

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
In this article, there are multiple references that are made to secondary Wikipedia articles. Since the references are linked to other Wikipedia sources with journal entries and meta-studies, the information is fairly accurate. The sources are thorough and do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current by presenting accurate and concise claims. The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors as there are multiple views and perspectives. The links do work, but there were a couple links that were broken.

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
The article is well written by being concise, clear, and easy to read. The article presented does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. It is broken down into sections to be well organized.

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 no images that are included within this topic. Since the topic is more information and research focused, there is no need for images.

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 talk page is organized very well and has various perspectives presented to supplement the article's information. The article is rated with high importance ratings and is well regarded by users.

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
Overall, the article is very useful by being structured and organized. The strengths of the argument are being concise by listing specific topics that are highlighted and sharing them with the users. The article can be improved through the addition of background content to support the balance of the article. Overall, I would assess the article's completeness as through and well developed.

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


 * Name of article: Facial recognition system
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have an interest in machine learning and facial recognition technologies and would be interested in further pursuing these interests.

Article feedback (Leadership)
Hi Sfwarriors99! Overall great progress on your article. The overall flow of the article and the sub-sections makes sense and it was interesting to learn about hyper surveillance. Here are some feedback as you polish up your final article draft:


 * Make sure to add citations. It seems like there are some but you may have not done them correctly as I cannot see the citations. Please make sure to cite all 20 of your articles from annotations
 * Make sure to add any hyperlinks to terms that have Wikipedia pages. This is a great way to connect your article with other related topics.

Overall great job and looking forward to reading the final draft!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sfwarriors99/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 includes an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. However, the lead doesn't entirely reflect the major topics addressed below

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 and are up to date. There aren't missing gap and doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gap or underrepresented populations or topics.

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 doesn't show any biasedness.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are backed up and reflect the available literature topic. The links work and the sources are written by 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?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written, it is concise. There aren't observable 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
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?

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 improved the overall quality of the article. I really like the short sentences used that adds to the neutrality of the content. I think the content can be improved by adding examples of what hyper surveillance is.

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

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing Sfwarriors99

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: The lead is concise and added new content

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 The content is relevant and is up to date, the article have no equity gaps.

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: The tone seems to be neutral.

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: There are no links in the article, and only a few sources

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: The content is well written and 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: No images/media

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: This article can add more links and relevant reference

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: The article doesn't seems to be complete, maybe add more content or sources.

Peer review (eddyd101)[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info[edit]

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sfwarriors99/sandbox?action=edit#Peer_review--Niangao

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: The lead is concise and touches on what is discussed in the article. It could be improved by making it only two paragraphs instead of having the last sentence made its own paragraph. The first sentence is the strongest part of the lead.

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 The content is relevant and current, however, the article could be expanded on to give a more complete overview of the topic. Right now the only section I see fleshed out is the "history" section. It would be great to see the other sections achieve the same quality as that section.

Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation: The content is neutral and does not advocate a particular position. The lead especially makes clear that there are advantages and disadvantages to the practice.

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: There are only two visible sources, however, the article includes the word "cite" at various other points where the insertion of citation would be helpful. I am unsure if sources were attempted to be added there and there was an error or if the word "cite" is acting as a placeholder until the author has a chance to add in the intended citations.

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: The writing is clear and the subsections seem logical and well conceived.

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: No images/media were added to the artiicle.

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: The article links to another article, but could be improved by adding more links. It seems to follow the pattern of other articles and meets the notability requirement, however, it needs more citations to accurately represent all available literature.

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: The article is off to a good start, especially the Lead section, but needs to be expanded. It looks like some parts of the article are still in the outlining stage, so once those are converted into full sentences the content of the article will be much more comprehensive.A good next step is adding in citations from your annotated bibliography and replacing placeholders with your real content.

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) Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing Sfwarriors99

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.

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. The content is not fleshed out with all annotations done. There is no Wikipedia equity gap in this 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: The tone seems to be neutral.

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. It seems like there was an error when using the "cite" function?

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: There are not error for what is written.

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: The lead has content, but the citations for it does not work. The article needs more content using the annotations we've done.

Guiding questions

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

Lead evaluation
The Lead does include an introductory sentence that is concise and clear. It accurately describes the topic and it also included a brief description of the major sections present in this source. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The Lead is concise and is specific enough to quickly grasp the topics.

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's content is relevant to the topic and the audience is able to understand the up to date and accurate information. The content present does belong and provides multiple perspectives to the technology. The article does no deal with any equity gaps and does not relate to any underrepresented topics.

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 is neutral by providing multiple perspectives to the technology. There are no claims that are position oriented. The viewpoints are underrepresented and would be stronger with more information to supplement content. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of any positions.

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 facts in the article are backed up by a secondary source from various primary and secondary sources. The sources are thorough and accurately reflect the literature on the topic by sharing multiple facets of the topic. The sources are not current ranging primarily from the 1990s to 2015. Some of the links do not work, but there are multiple opinions shared.

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
The article is well written and is concise, clear, and easy to read. The article has no errors. it is also well organized with multiple sub topics.

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
The article includes one introductory picture and helps show what facial detection software is. It is well captioned by sharing what software is and does follow the regulations. It is also 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 conversations shared discuss what face detection is and what the algorithms used are. It also references another page within face detection for psychology. It is not a part of WikiProjects.

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
Overall, the article is well presented and has multiple strengths to be concise and clear. It can be improved by having a few more diagrams and sections about the specifics of the technology. The article is underdeveloped and needs a little bit more work to be more specific.

Hyper surveillance Article Plan I plan to create an introductory section including what hyper surveillance is and how it is different. I have an interest in privacy, security, and facial recognition systems. Therefore, I look forward to completing more research into how hyper surveillance differs from traditional security structures. An outline that I could use is: Defintion Practical Applications Impact of Hyper surveillance Future Uses of the Technology

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: L ink

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 includes an introductory sentence and concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It currently consists of information that is not present in the article, but that's probably because the rest of the article is currently an outline. The lead is very concise and well written.

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 yet is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The author needs to develop the outline to have more content; and I don't anticipate any equity gaps in the 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: Not much content has been added yet, but the claims and outline do not appear heavily biased toward a particular position and seem fairly neutral. No viewpoints have been overrepresented or underrepresented yet, and do not 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?

Sources and references evaluation: No sources have been added yet.

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: Not much content has been added yet, but the article draft was fairly easy to read. There were no grammatical or spelling errors. The outline also shows that the content is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic, and thus is fairly well-organized.

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: No secondary sources have been added yet to verify Notability or if the list of sources is exhaustive. However, the article does have potential links to other articles so it is more discoverable.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

Overall evaluation: The Article Lead is very well written. The article has a strong outline right now, and the plan for content addition shows a lot of potential. All the best!
 * 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?

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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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 include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, and it include information is presented in the article, but it needs to further include a brief description of the articles's major sections. This lead is concise.

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 is no missing content. The structure is really clear. It does not deal with equity gaps. Maybe expanding it a little more could make better understanding for readers.

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. No claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The content added is not attempting 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?

Sources and references evaluation
new content is not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There is no cited sources yet.

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 added is well-written and does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The content is well-organized.

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.

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 does not meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements(needs more sources).

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 overall status of the article is relatively solid as the lead is concise and the content is relevant to the topic. The article could be improved by including more reliable sources and further developing the content such as the practical application part.

Categories:


 * Wikipedia Student Program

Peer review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: L ink

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 is concise, starting off with a good definition of Hyper surveillance. This lead covers the articles planned major sections. However because the rest of the article is not finished the lead contains information that is not present in the article. Additionally, the amount of transitons could be cut down to make it more straight to the point.

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 of this article seems to be up to date, the hyperlinks are not carried over (error of copy pasting so I can not check this). Despite this problem the information does seem relevant to the topic.

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?

From what there is the content is neutral. There aren’t much claims at all resulting in no under or over representation of view. This content does not seem to persuade the reader

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 seem to be present but accidentally removed!!!!! The links do not work. There is reference artifacts ex. [1] but they do not work or have a reference attached. This most likely is an error of copy pasting your article.

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?

From what there is it has been easy to read not having any other spelling errors making it hard to read. One thing I would suggest is maybe change the Definition subheading to history possibly.

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?

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?
 * 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: There are remnants of secondary sources, but they are not present. Because the sources are not present it is hard for me to evaluate this.

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 strength of this article is what is currently there, the lead. What could be improved is to fix the remnants of secondary sources (so that they work and link correctly) and I would just add information to the subheadings expanding them. Doing this should make the article more complete.

Copy Edit Sauceboss 12
Hyper Surveillance is the use of technology, internet of things, and security systems to create a surveillance profile of individuals[1]

The increase in the reliance of gig economy and Internet systems has led to increased and pinpointed surveillance. From construction workers using fingerprints to clock in employees to timesheets of bathroom breaks, companies and businesses are starting to make efforts for continuous monitoring. This could harm the working population mentally and physically. [2]

While hyper surveillance has some practical applications as monitoring employees and improving productivity, there are also concerns about how this can impact employee trust and honesty ((move [2] here)). There are also concerns for how the traditional security systems can be optimized for hyper surveillance to be further utilized.

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? Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Sfwarriors99/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead does not include 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 description of hyper surveillance technologies 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? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * 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? No

Sources and references evaluation
There is no sources or references.

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 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? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

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? NoHow 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? No

New Article Evaluation
There is no sources or links to other articles.

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 lead is concise and clear, and the content added does make the article more complete. The article can be improved by adding citations to make the article more valid.

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? Tinayyt
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tinayyt/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 description of Reliability Verification 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? no
 * Are the sources current? no
 * 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? no

Sources and references evaluation
There is no sources or references.

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-organized 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? n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? n/a
 * 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? n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? no

New Article Evaluation
The article is not 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 lead is concise and clear, and the content added does make the article more complete. The article can be improved by adding citations to make the article more valid.

Peer review by Panacotta101
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) Sfwarriors99
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Draft:Hyper-surveillance

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
Lead reflects the new content added. It introduces the topic, but not the following sections. The second paragraph in the Lead section could probably be more concise, only mention the increasing amount of hyper-surveillance.

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
Content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. It also deals with equity gaps by pointing out surveillance is targeted towards certain groups of people.

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
Content added is neutral and not biased towards a particular position. It does not try to persuade readers.

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
Some of the new content is backed up with reliable sources. There are limited amount of sources listed. Sources are current and links I checked could work.

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 easy to read. The History section seems to include some material that does not belong to this subtitle. The second paragraph could probably be a separate section.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
The article has an image showing the surveillance camera, an example of hyper-surveillance. It helps reader understand the topic and makes the article more appealing. It is well-captioned. It meets the copyright requirements.

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 needs to be supported by more reliable sources. It has a similar pattern as other articles. It also includes a few links to other articles.

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 improve the overall quality of the article. More content such as the impact of hyper-surveillance could be added to the article.