User talk:Luckyclover44

Hello!
Hi Luckyclover44, nice to meet you! Hope you are having a great first week, and I am looking forward to working with you this semester! Casademasa (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Another HELLO Luckyclover44, great to make your acquaintance. After a rather busy week, I'm excited to meet ya and can't wait to see what happens next! LowIQPotato (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2021 (PST)

Welcome!
Hello, Luckyclover44, 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 8
Evaluate the drafted changes Lead Guiding questions:

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added. The lead is concise.

Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic. There is no information included that is irrelevant. + Content is neutral. I'm not sure if there are criticisms of enforcing laws on spypixels. if there are that would be interesting to touch on. Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic I might move the legislation section above the external individual regulations section. If not protected by external legislation, individuals can do x? Overall impressions Guiding questions:

The article is significantly more complete now. The parts added to the article are more utilitarian -- allowing people to understand and potentially notice spy pixels before they impact them. It's far more information than it was before. I also thought it was really impressive how you described the technology in such simple terms, it made it a lot easier to follow. I wonder if there is any information about how successful the privacy regulations have been at reducing spy pixels. That could be interesting. Penguinblueberry (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Penguinblueberry

Peer Review #2 Week 8
Just finished peer-reviewing your article! Great work so far. 99rebound (talk)

Lead: Great lead section! It was concise and straight to the point, and it gave a great overview of what spy pixels are.

Content: The content you have was really informative, and I liked the organization of the subtopics and how they flow with one another. The only suggestion I have is how you stated "However, privacy tools can have usability flaws..." in the Countermeasures subtopic, this statement may create some bias. But that is it, great work!

Images and media: N/A

Overall:

Great job! There wasn't much to constructive criticize on.

Week 9 Peer Review
Lead: Excellent lead! You give a thorough description of spy pixels and discuss the lack of regulations set in place.

Content: The content aspect is great. You first begin with the mechanism of spy pixels, transitioning over to usage, countermeasures, and then finishing off with policies and regulations. I totally agree with the flow and order of topics. Great work!

Impression: You've done a terrific job with the spy pixel article. You've clearly done great research and there's not much more I can say!

Impression:

Peer Review Week 9
Lead: Great lead section! Gave a concise and clear understanding of spy pixels. Also, included relevant information that would be further explained throughout the article.

Content: The content was really informative and never confusing. I love how you gave an history of spy pixels before explaining the technical details regarding the topic. Make sure to cite your sources wherever relevant.

Tone and Balance: The article was written in a neutral tone with no hints of bias in my opinion.

Sources: Sources were all up to date with several references that made the article information reliable.

Organization: The order of the headings makes a lot of sense and each section flows to the next. You should be proud of yourself, this was a great article! Hotpink789! (talk) 04:02, 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. This is a very thorough explanation and easy to understand. Good expansion of concepts and introducing ideas in the Lead.

I enjoyed reading the History section and learning more about Spy Pixels. I would recommend expanding the Usage (Use Case) section and sharing more information related to how the term was created and adding images alongside each case.

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 main space. Great use of over 25+ citations. I enjoyed reading your article. It was very well detailed and referenced multiple sources supporting your vision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfwarriors99 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Week 10
Peer review

Lead: The lead section looks great! It is concise, with just enough detail. Gives a good overview of the content.

Content: The content is comprehensive and extremely well written. All of it seems up-to-date and relevant. There is no content that doesn't belong. One minor suggestion (this may be better suited for another section): The first sentence in the history section may be slightly misleading. It talks about the invention of email, but is under the "history" subsection in an article devoted to Spy Pixels. There may be some way to re-word the sentence just to clarify.

Tone and Balance: The content is all neutral and is not biased in any direction. The technical information is clearly objective, and any information containing value judgments is clearly attributed to a subjective source.

Sources and References: The article is very well sourced with material that all appears to be authored recently. All aspects of the topic are clearly represented (both useful and malicious utilities). The available links are all in working order.

Organization: The organization is good and the flow of the article is intuitive and clearly outlines the topic. I wonder if you might want to put the "uses" section before the "spying effect" section, just to give a general overview before jumping into specifics, but it works either way. The article is clear and I don't see any grammatical errors. Looks great!

New Article Considerations: Article meets all of the notability requirements. It might be good to add a section at the bottom linking to other similar articles, although the in-text hyperlinks are pretty extensive. Follows the patterns of other similar articles.

Overall impressions: I think the article is really good! Fascinating read, well-written, extensively researched. Great job! Stellasuperba (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

The lead is very short, but it gets to the point. There's not much mention fo the following subsections, but as a lead it is very concise and provides a solid overview of what is to come.

Content:

The content seems complete; from history, to mechanics, to usage, this article covers it all. Nothing is out of place here as we see every aspect of Spy Pixel put out there. There is a bit of mention to the equity gap at the end, but it's very broad and not well defined. By this, I mean there's a mention of groups' privacy being taken advantage of, but there isn't too much info on the groups affected and how much they were affected by Spy Pixel. There's no inherent bias present, as the article serves to inform, and does simply that.

Tone and Balance:

The content is neutral; the author wants to explain and gives an incredibly holistic view of the literature about the topic. As a result, it's hard to say anything was over/underrepresented in this article (which usually means balance, and that's good).

Sources and References:

Considering our project team, there are reliable sources and the information is based off of them. Strong sources with functioning links, that's all we can really ask for.

Organization:

The structure is very methodical and logical, and this is a result of following the style of most wikipedia articles out there. That's not to say it's good or bad in terms of structure, it's just typical. That is not bad! We are introduced to the background, build up on the mechanics, and end with our outcomes, consequences, and reactions. Standard stuff, and for this article it works REALLY WELL! There's no errors that I could catch.

Images and Media:

There are no images and it makes sense.

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 other articles, making the article more discoverable. In terms of patterns, I see the standard structure most articles follow.

Overall Impressions:

Great article! I see it as informative and to the point (no beating around the bush which I like to see). Strengths: concise in nature, easy follow due to the logic of the structure, well-defined sections. Improvements/things I would like to see: emphasize the equity gap a bit more, just flesh it out a tad.

LowIQPotato (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Article Feedback (Junior Leadership) Week 10
Great work on your article. Good use of citations, pictures, and informations. Good analysis within each sections and use of data from your sources. Congrats on making it to the mainspace.

Article Feedback (Junior Leadership) Week 10
Great work on your article. Good use of citations, pictures, and informations. Good analysis within each sections and use of data from your sources. Congrats on making it to the mainspace.

Peer Edit Week 11
Hey! Your mainspace article looks awesome.

Lead

Guiding questions:

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added. The lead is concise. However, I think it might be helpful to add one of the sentences about what percentage of emails have spy pixls i in them or just one of the statistics from your spying effect section.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic. There is no information included that is irrelevant. + Content is neutral. If there is information available that criticizes the use of spypixels I think that might be interesting to add.

I also thought it was really impressive how you described the technology in such simple terms, it made it a lot easier to follow! Penguinblueberry (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Penguinblueberry

Peer Review #2 Week 11
Lead: The lead was short and concise. Felt having the history topic following right after the lead provided a great transition into the article.

Tone and Balance: The tone seemed consistent and unbiased. I liked the commentary for the cited evidence you provided. Commentary are well thought out and allowed for a better understanding for the readers on spy pixels.

Content: Great content! I especially liked the usage section as it related more to the every day tasks we all do.

Sources and References: All sources are up to date and are relevant to spy pixel. Sources are unbiased as well.

Organization: Well organized, I thought the subtopics you chose were relevant and fit well with the preceding topics. The content was smooth to read as well.

Images and Media: N/A

Overall Impressions: Great article! There was not much to critique on! 99rebound (talk) 99rebound