User talk:Hotpink789!

hello !
- penguin blueberry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguinblueberry (talk • contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Hotpink789!, 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)

Lead

 * Lead has been updated to reflect changes in the article
 * Lead includes a concise and relevant introductory sentence
 * Lead does not include a brief description of the section "Denialism"
 * Lead does not include information that's not in the article
 * Lead is concise and not overly detailed

Content

 * Content added is relevant to the topic
 * Content is up to date (maybe mention when the articles were published and if he has any new works in progress or recent publications to get an idea of when he is active)

Tone and Balance

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

Sources and References

 * Difficult to gauge accuracy of material because the papers are not easily accessible
 * From Wikipedia:Citing Sources: "For academic sources, the convenience link is typically a reprint provided by an open-access repository, such as the author's university's library or institutional repository. Such green open access links are generally preferable to paywalled or otherwise commercial and unfree sources."

Organization

 * Article is well-organized and structured
 * No spelling or grammatical errors
 * Just some of my suggestions on wording, etc. (nothing major):
 * Under Social networking services: the first paragraph could be more concise, such as combining "the price" and "the consequence" of the transaction
 * Under Commercial data brokers: To make the list more consistent: "there shouldn't be distinctions between commercial and government collection of information" → "commercial and government collection of information shouldn't be distinct."

Overall
Great job! I really enjoyed reading your article draft and about the research that Prof. Hoofnagle has done. Adding a section on his research has definitely strengthened the article a lot! Luckyclover44 (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes - I might add a sentence that outlines the different consumer privacy contributions? 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? Yes, the information about whether or not young people like privacy is not included in the sections Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but i wonder if there could be any information added about Hoofnagle's background/position before you begin talking about his contributions to the field Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

No large tone / balance problems. Is there any controversy related to this man? If so, maybe include that?

Sources and References Guiding questions:

Content is backed up by reliable sources of information & sources are relatively current given that not everything the article references is current. Links work.

Organization Guiding questions:

Yes - Awesome thorough article! I enjoyed reading it.

Penguinblueberry (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)penguinblueberry

Week 9 Peer Review
Lead: Great lead section! It was concise and straight to the point, and it gave a great overview of who Chris Hoofnagle is and his background information.

Content: The content you have was really informative, and the organization of the subtopics were great. The subtopics within topics made your description of Hoofnagles' work more clear and significant.

Tone and Balance: The article seems to be written in a neutral tone in my opinion. There are no hints towards any bias.

Sources and References: Great sources as they are all up to date and you have included several references which makes your article more credible. The additional sources linked to the subtopic headings were great as well. This gives the readers more context if they are unsure before going to read the subtopic paragraph itself.

Organization: The organization is great. I liked the subtopics within main topics.

Week 9 Peer Review
Lead: Terrific lead! You gave a great background of Chris Hoofnagle, summarizing his main ideas and contributions.

Content: I really like how you organized each section, by first giving a summary of each topic and then talking about Hoofnagle's thoughts/research on the topic. I would be careful to not blur the lines between the facts of each topic and the opinions of Hoofnagle.

Impression: Everything seems to be cited correctly, so great job. The article is extremely informative and goes into great depth. One suggestion is to list the actual studies which Hoofnagle conducts, rather than just saying "in a study".

Good work! CelticsFan3 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Junior Leadership Draft Review
Hi, I really enjoyed your article draft. I think that delving into these specific sections really provides a full description of Chris Hoofnagle. One thing to think about is to try to remain a completely neutral perspective. The article is more of just presenting information and not trying to provide a point. Don’t forget to add citations for all of your sections. Besides those minor things, this was a wonderful draft. I can’t wait to see what else you write!

Peer Review Week 10
Peer review

Lead: Lead section looks good. Gives a good overview of the content and is clear and concise.

Content: The content is generally very good. I've noticed that many biographical wiki articles have a section labeled "early life" or something like that, which outlines the person's childhood/education/etc. May be worth doing here, especially because he is an academic and is probably related to other academic institutions. The section on "commercial data brokers" says that Hoofnagle offers four policy solutions, but I only see three listed. The content is generally neutral and any normative statements are attributed to Hoofnagle.

Sources and References: Sources appear to be up to date and reflect the general literature available on the topic. The links are in working order.

Organization: The article is well organized and has a natural flow. All of the sections and subsections are appropriately titled and clearly divided. The content is clear and easy to read. No grammatical/spelling errors that I can see.

New Article Considerations: The article meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Follows the general pattern of other similar articles (with the exception of the "early life" section I'd mentioned above). Well linked to other articles.

Overall impressions: I think you did a really nice job! The article gives a great overview of Hoofnagle's work and is well-written and well-organized.Stellasuperba (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Great lead! It provides a great overview of the article with just the right amount of detail.

Content
The content added is relevant and up to date. I would suggest maybe adding some information on where he went to undergrad/grad school, which degrees he holds, etc. so get an idea of his credentials.

Tone and Balance
Content is neutral. There appears to be no bias or persuasion

Sources and References
Sources are diverse and up to date.

Organization
Article is well-organized and structured, and there appears to be no spelling or grammatical errors. The "research" section could be renamed just because the entire "Privacy Literature Contributions" section appears to be mostly discussing his research?

Overall
This is a fantastic article! You've really expanded upon the content and provided a rundown of his research in an easy-to-understand way. Luckyclover44 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Junior Leadership Review
Hi! I see you moved your draft to the mainspace. Great work! The only thing I think that could be edited at this time is perhaps expanding the career section a bit. I think it could be great to state how long he was served in his position. Other than that, amazing work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntheHeartofTexas (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Hoofnagle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Etag. 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) 05:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Edit Week 11
Amazing work! make sure you remove the citation to the CPDP because therre is not a wikipedia page on that. Otherwise, Looks great! Penguinblueberry (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)penguinblueberry