User talk:Grilledrex

Welcome!
Hello, Grilledrex, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi Grilledrex! Just wanted to let you know that I will be peer reviewing your article.

I am also peer reviewing the other two members of our little group (as I missed one earlier this semester), and will be leaving similar message on their user talk pages so we don't wind up with someone who doesn't get two peer reviews. Maa0519 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary: The author wrote their article on de-identification, which is the process of removing identifying marks from datasets to protect the participants’ privacy. They start off by adding a brief sentence to the lead paragraph to identify some of its uses in various fields. Additionally, the author: identifies another example of de-identification in the article body; added another application of de-identification; and outlined some of the techniques used: pseudonmization and k-anonymization.

Major Points: I think the author adhered to the key components of Wikipedia writing. I didn’t detect any bias while reading the article, and I felt it also was encyclopedic in nature, and I had a good grasp of what de-identification is, why it’s important, and what its used for. Comparing this article to a similar one, “statistical disclosure control”, I see it has a similar structure (which is great), outlining why the technique is important and different types of the technique that are used. One noticeable thing is the lack of media in the article. As the class mentioned during the in-class peer review, a image of of de-identification in action, redaction, or something of that nature might be beneficial for a reader’s understanding of this topic.

While helpful, I believe the “example” section might be better suited for a list format, rather than paragraph format. This may help a reader understand that they’re scenarios rather than content. Better yet, maybe the author could consider changing the title to “Examples of de-identification”, “de-identification scenarios” or something like that. Also, do these scenarios have a source? If not, they may be considered original research, which isn’t great. I think it may also be beneficial for the author to reorganize the “Techniques” section a bit. For instance, it includes a lead sentence which introduces the subsections. This is almost a transition sentence, which according to Prof. Musselman, are not necessary. Instead, the author could cut the sentences from the lead paragraph and add them to the appropriate subsection. This will bolster each subsection and give the section a more encylopedia-like feel.

Minor Points: I am aware that the author did not write the sentence in the lead paragraph that uses a quote, but they may want to consider paraphrasing it, as direct quotation on Wikipedia is a big no-no, as we have learned. I think the author should add some more links to other Wikipedia pages in the article. For instance, the sentence in the lead paragraph starting as “It is commonly used in the fields....” has a bunch of stuff that could be linked to their articles.

I also feel like there are several places that may need a citation added (as they’re stand alone sentences without any source), like: the example section, as mentioned; the last four sentences of the “applications” section; the lead sentence of the “techniques” section; and the last sentence of the “anonymization and de-identification” section, to name a few. Having citations for those will go a long way on Wikipedia. Lastly, all of the source used by the author seem to be research from scientific journals, which is great.

Maa0519 (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

=Peer Review 2= Hi, just a heads up that I will also be reviewing your article. Betaprice (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary The user edited the article "De-identification," which is the process by which an individual's information is decoupled from their personal identity, especially when that information is being used publicly. In terms of the actual editing, the user expanded a few of the sections (and their subsections), deleted a few unnecessary ones, and also created a few new sections.

Major Points I'm not sure if I'm reviewing this while the user is still working, but the largest issue is the end of the article. There are two sections which have no information in them yet (the section "De-identification Laws in the United States of America" is fairly comprehensive and I am not sure why the user did not use that information already there). The "Techniques" section was a very useful addition to the article, but it seems to be one of the only major changes to the article. The other changes seem to mainly be the addition of one or two paragraphs to preexisting sections. It might be nice to expand even further upon them if at all possible. In terms of citations, there are more citations in the current article. The user might want to consider looking into some of the articles they did not yet cite to find new information, as all of the citations appear to be from legitimate sources. In terms of similar articles, most articles on privacy and anonymity are not great, but this one fits in, at least in terms of how the information is presented.

Minor Points In terms of grammar, the paragraphs in the section "Example" (which should probably be pluralized) should probably not start off the way they do. I would most likely begin the paragraphs with something along the lines of "De-identification is used in surveys and similar events, where information is collected...". It is also slightly troubling to me that there are no citations within that section. I am not sure there a whole lot of pictures that can be used in this article, but I would heavily consider finding media to include. This is not that important, however, as most articles on the subject do not use a whole lot of media either. Betaprice (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)