User talk:99rebound

Welcome!
Hello, 99rebound, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 7
Hi! I just completed the peer review on your article. Great work! CelticsFan3 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

99rebound


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:99rebound/Local differential privacy
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Local differential privacy

Lead
I saw that you added another paragraph to the lead and I think you did a great job of giving a better overview of your topic. The first sentence you added, starting with "With the ever growing society", could be more objective as it seems to me that there is some sort of emotion put in. Also instead of saying LDP is an excellent privacy model, maybe say that it is widely recognized or something along those lines.

Content
The information added under Applications is impressive. I liked that you split it up into different categories and the content shows that you've grasped the main ideas from the research. The content seems to all be relevant to the topic. There are some instances in which the wording can seem biased or not neutral. Ex: "However, this comes at a subtle cost".

Impression
I really enjoyed reading your article and you made some great changes. I would suggest thinking of the placements of each source of content. Ex: Place history section before Applications. Another suggestion is just to double check the tone and syntax of your article. Ex: Instead of "In the study sponsored by the Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and computational Intelligence", say "In an Andalusian Research Institute in Data Science and Computational Intelligence study, ...". You did an excellent job of citing your sources and they're all current! Keep up the good work!

Peer Review
Just finished peer-reviewing your article! Great work so far. Hotpink789! (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

Great lead section! Gave me a great overview of the subject. One potential suggestion would be to include a short definition of differential privacy, because readers might not be familiar with that term.

Content:

Under the applications section, it would be helpful to define each of the applications you talk about. Make sure to cite all the information you provide.

You do a great job of not being biased and sticking to the facts.

I was confused by the "ε-local differential privacy" section. What is the significance of the formula?

I think you could expand more on the deployment section. What is the significance of these companies using LDP?

Images and media:

None used

Overall:

Great job! I just had a few suggestions. Good luck continuing your article.

Peer Review Week 8
Peer review

Lead:

Lead section looks good. Gives a great overview of the article. In the second paragraph, second sentence, you may want to get rid of the word "only" as it indicated that that is the singular consequence of data fusion and analysis techniques--risks sounding biased. May be worth describing differential privacy in laymans terms. I know you linked the other wikipedia article to "differential privacy" (which has a fantastic first sentence of the lead paragraph)--may be worth adding something like that. May be something to the effect of: "While differential privacy does [_____], localized differential privacy adds the component of [____]." Other than that, it looks good!

Content:

Content looks really good and I like the layout. As mentioned above adding something in simple terms may be helpful, although I don't know enough about the complexity of the topic to know if it is possible.

On a separate note, the first sentence of the "Health Data Aggregation" sentence is a little strange, may be better to read as: "...everyday lives, but it has also made tremendous changes to the health industry, resulting from the rise of big data."

Finally, I'm not sure if it's possible (or, again, even necessary), but it may be helpful to add something about the implications of using a different algorithm (what it accomplishes that the original does not) in the "ε-local differential privacy" section. Granted, I'm pretty math stupid, so there may be no way of outlining this without requiring substantive prior knowledge or going way off track, but if it's possible, it would definitely be helpful.

Tone and Balance:

Tone and balance are good for the most part. Only suggestion was mentioned above, regarding the word "only."

Sources and References:

Sources and references are all reliable and up to date.

Organization:

Article is well organized, flows intuitively, and follows the outline laid out in the lead section.

General Impressions:

Article is really good. Just to reiterate once more--I think it may be helpful to give some explanation of the mechanics of LDP that an uninformed user can understand, but short of that, it looks good. Stellasuperba (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * Lead has been updated to reflect changes in the article
 * Lead includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
 * Lead does not include information that's not in the article
 * Lead is concise and not overly detailed, but a bit technical
 * Might be helpful to explain things in "layman's terms" as well

Content

 * Content added is relevant to the topic
 * Content is up to date

Tone and Balance

 * Content is neutral
 * No biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views
 * No persuasion

Sources and References

 * Sources appear to be reliable
 * Sources are diverse
 * There are some areas where there is a lack of citations (e.g. first couple of sentences under "Applications")

Organization

 * Article is well-organized and structured
 * No spelling or grammatical errors
 * Make sure to link to other Wikipedia articles (i.e. artificial intelligence)

Overall
Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article on local differential privacy. The additional information you added on applications really made the article come to life and more understandable! Great work! Luckyclover44 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Reviews Week 9
Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, but i think the history and applications sections could be added more significantly into the lead of the article. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but sentence is a bit unclear and should be shortened. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think that some of the details in the lead could be supplemented - I explained above. Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes. Maybe the article should include a series of criticisms that the technology has received. Sources and References Guiding questions:

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Most of the articles are fairly new & reliable. The one's from 2014/2017 should maybe be updated. Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the hyper links to people do not work -- there are not wikipedia articles for these people. Organization Guiding questions:

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I noticed Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I'm not sure if you should title a section - ε-local differential privacy. Is there a simpler way to tag this? Perhaps if you are including it in your article you should do more introduction of the topic in the intro just to make it a bit more clear. I am confused by the difference of applications and deployment in the article. Wouldn't these be the same thing? Penguinblueberry (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)Penguinblueberry

Lead:

This lead is rather strong as it provides an abundance of exposition to what the article is going to talk about and why. In doing this I'm given a reason to continue rather than feeling like I have to force myself to. As a result, I have a clear idea of the information that is to follow.

Content:

The content appears to be relevant to the overarching topic, which is good. The amount of content is amazing, I would say this looks complete (albeit I could be wrong). One thing I will noticed though is the lack of addressing the equity gap. However, this makes perfect sense given the technical nature of the information being shared. I do feel this could still be addressed in some ways, such as how this technology has been used to harm marginalized communities, etc.

Tone and Balance:

As a result of the technical nature, this article is very neutral. IT has the purpose of sharing information, and does that effectively. Overall, the wording has no intent to persuade, albeit there were some charged words, for example calling spam calls a nuisance (which they are, but nuisance has some strong negative connotations that seem directed).

Sources and References:

Well, there are a lot of sources, and understanding the process of how they were accumulated, they seem solid.

Organization:

The organization is very modular, so it's easy to read one section and get the idea of that specific section. The knowledge is very technical, so while it is readable, that might not mean understandable. As it stands, this article is probably more for someone with the background knowledge to read the material rather than a common reader. I'm sure with some time they could come to understand what's going on, but it isn't exactly simple. Still, I cannot help but praise how much and how well the article is organized. As far as I could tell, there are no grammatical issues.

Images and Media:

The images definitely add to the understanding as they supplement the reading. The captions help give a good reasoning for why they exist in the article. In terms of aesthetic, the placement is fine.

For New Articles Only:

The new article will meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Knowing the work the lab has to do, the sources will be extensive and exhaustive in the knowledge they provide. The article links to very few articles, so it may be harder to discover.

Overall Impressions:

So far, this article has blown me away with how succinct and bubbling with knowledge it is. There's so much to learn from just a single section, and that's what makes your article so strong. I will say that even at a high level, some of the technical jargon was difficult to read, so maybe a bit more explanation would work wonders, but holistically the article is superb! LowIQPotato (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Feedback (Junior Leadership)
Hello!

Great progress on your article! It clearly has a structure and has a well formatted structure. Good expansion of concepts and introducing ideas in the Lead.

I enjoyed reading the application section and is well written and thorough. I would recommend expanding the History section and sharing more information related to how the term was created and the impact that LDP has on communities.

Great use of more than 20 citations. Overall, great work and I look forward to reading your article.

Congrats on moving your article to the mainspace and great work on completing your work. This is a great use of citations and references to support your topic.

Peer Review Week 10
Lead: Great lead section! I would take out the statement that “the smart devices we all have collect,” since not everyone has the means to own a smart device. There are also extra spaces after your period with the sentence ending in “data era.”

Content: Very informative. - First paragraph in “history:” make sure to include “and” after Ramakrishnan Srikant because you are listing names. - In general, make sure to cite all the information that you write about where necessary. I notice you use second person point of view multiple times throughout the article. This makes the article more informal, so it is your decision of whether or not you want to keep that as the tone.

Tone and Balance: Neutral tones; found no instances of bias in my opinion.

Sources: The sources that I double-checked worked.

Organization: Organized very clearly, concisely, and understandably. Article flows well.

Overall: Overall, the article was great and very informative to read! I loved how you added visuals to the piece! It made it way more engaging to read. Really good job. Hotpink789! (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 10
Lead: The lead is very informative, but there was an instance where I think you could change the sentence structure to make it more objective. When you say "the smart devices we all have collect extensive statistics and analysis of our personal data that threatens the privacy of users", I would omit the "we all have" portion".

Content: The content is great and I can see you really went in-depth with the research and layout of each application of local differential privacy. The links to all of your sources work and seem up-to-date. I really like that you added some graphics that add to understanding the topic.

Impression: Great work! Seems like you're almost finished and you've done a fantastic job. CelticsFan3 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Local differential privacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Facial recognition. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Lead has been updated to reflect new information in the article

Content
Content added is relevant to the topic and up to date

Tone and Balance
Content is neutral; no biased, overrepresented, or underrepresented views

Sources and References
Sources appear to be reliable and diverse; the links that I checked worked

Organization
Article is well-organized and structured; no spelling or grammatical errors I think that you could maybe link to even more Wikipedia articles (i.e. biometrics) or include a "see also" section

Overall
Overall a very informative, well-written, and well-structured article. I really liked that you added images! Luckyclover44 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)