User talk:Jameswang323

Introduction
Hi James,

My name is Max and I am a classmate of yours in UGBA 39E.

Best, Max — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxack37 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi James,

My name is Erika and I am a classmate of yours in UGBA 39E.

Best, Erika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikabucb (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Jameswang323, 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) 18:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Article Edits
Hi James,

Please refer to the link to see my article edits. Great start!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameswang323/Civic_Intelligence/Maxack37_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Maxack37 (talk) 02:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jameswang323, I'm very excited to get to know you over the course of the semester! --- Tinayyt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinayyt (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

introduction
Hi this is Maryjane404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.109.121 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Identity replacement technology moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Identity replacement technology, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Ost (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review!
Hey James, here's my completed peer review!

General info I will be reviewing Jameswang323's article on Identity Replacement Technology Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Since this is a new article and not editing an existing one, yes the lead contains all new information.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, the existing sentence of the lead is concise and gives a simple, understandable definition of the topic.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, it discusses all the topics that are present in the sections of the article. It doesn't specify how the sections are split, per say, but I think it accomplishes its goal without needing to.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

There was a mention of an anti-mask governing law at the end of the first paragraph in the lead section, and that wasn't explored further in the article.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Lead evaluation

It accomplishes it's job very well. There is a punctuation error on the last sentence of the first paragraph, as it has a "/" instead of a period. Also, I'm unsure if the mention of the anti-mask governing law should be present in the lead, as it doesn't really get expanded upon in any of the other sections. Overall, it had a neutral tone and I could see no bias towards one party in the language thus far.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, all the content is relevant. I can tell by reading, but it was also nice how the content was connected to the topic in the lead section well.

Is the content added up-to-date?

I see a few articles from the early 2000s, which may be a little out-of-date, but nonetheless it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the article writing. Also, a majority of the articles do seem up-to-date.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No content that doesn't belong in my opinion, but I would like to know more about how the anti-mask governing law and how that fits in to any of the subtopics at hand, since it was mentioned in the lead.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

It does, as it is an article that did not exist on Wikipedia before this. The article didn't mention how the topics were related to historically underrepresented populations, but I don't think it was supposed to.

Content evaluation

I was able to understand the language in the overall content very well. In the last section of the entire article, I think there is a typo: "this rype of image privacy protection" instead of "this type". For the last section of the "Face authentication and biometric identification section", there is a claim about mass crimes related to the subtopic can cause "serious damage to the international landscape". I think this might be a bit too general and hard to picture for people unaware about foreign affairs, so perhaps adding a specific example to demonstrate this would make the claim more clear. Also, I'm unsure if "serious" is not neutral enough, although I would air on the side that it is fine. Up to you if you would like to keep it or not.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

The content added is neutral. It seems like they are just summarizing the sources they got the information from, which is how it's supposed to be.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No specific claims, other than the one mentioned in the content evaluation section.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I see none that are overrepresented or underrepresented. Both how the technology mentioned can be positive and negative are written about, as well as explaining any unusual terms.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone and balance is good, and there is no strong stance taken for or against any particular side.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, but source 11 seems like a law journal and I'm unsure if we are allowed to use law journals for citations. That might just be purely for the annotated bibliography and not our article, though.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, they are all research-based.

Are the sources current?

Some from the early 2000s, but overall current.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

It is hard to tell if the authors are diverse, since just their names are present. The titles of the articles don't help me gage either, but I don't feel like this has affected the quality of the article in any way.

Check a few links. Do they work?

There are no links to be clicked, but searching up the articles online give me accessible articles in-return, so the sources work.

Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

It is well-written and clear, but I think it could be improved if within each section it was split into sub-sections, like one for 3D sensor cameras and one for fingerprinting, just for the sole purpose of being more clear in how the information is split up and when it transitions to a new topic within the section.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, they have been mentioned throughout the other questions in this peer review. There is also this sentence: "there are global political, ethical, and economical threats spoofer that goes beyond a country's borders.", and I don't think that the word "spoofer" makes the sentence make sense. Is this where the word is supposed to go? This is in the "Face authentication and biometric identification" section.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, although I think it could be broken down into further sections as mentioned previously.

Organization evaluation

Overall good, minor grammar/punctuation errors that have been mentioned throughout this peer review. A recommendation would be to split content in sections further into sub sections, at your discretion.

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? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation

If you feel that images would enhance the article and/or make it more easy for the reader to understand, then I suggest adding them. Maybe a picture of fingerprinting/how it works or one of the other techs you mentioned would be good as an image. Overall, an image isn't necessary, but would add to the article in my opinion.

For New Articles Only

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

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

Yes

How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

It is an appropriate amount for the size of the article, all the sources seem relevant to the topic.

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, but it could benefit with more sub-sections within the already-split sections.

Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Yes, it does, although I'm unsure if I just didn't catch it but maybe "spoofing" would be another good term to link your article to.

New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes, it feels like a complete article.

What are the strengths of the content added?

The content was written in an understandable matter for the most part, and the sections themselves were split well.

How can the content added be improved?

Clarity could be improved by splitting the sections further within each one, also perhaps adding an image would improve the article as well. HanMiKC (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not mark major edits as minor
Hi Jameswang323! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm J. M.. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)
 * Identity replacement technology
 * added links pointing to Alignment, Tracker, Deduplication, Portability, Breach, Bots and NCSI

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Identity replacement technology
Hello, Jameswang323. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Identity replacement technology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Identity replacement technology


Hello, Jameswang323. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Identity replacement technology".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)