User talk:Luckyclover44/Spy pixel/Stellasuperba Peer Review

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Section

Lead section is well constructed and gives a good outline of what will be covered in the article. Information about Hoofnagle's tenure at Berkeley is not covered elsewhere in the article, although I'm not sure it needs to be (some bio articles have info about "early life" or "career," but in this case it may not be relevant. Only minor suggestion might be changing "specifically" (3rd sentence) to something like "Notably," as "specifically" seems to limit the breadth of his work.

Content

Content appears to be both relevant and up to date. As far as I can tell, there is no information missing. There are a few tidbits of information that I think could be expanded on for the sake of clarity (outlined below in "Minor Suggestions"). Doesn't necessarily deal with equity gaps, but I'm not really sure how it could.

Tone and Balance

Content is neutral and objective. All subjective statements are properly attributed to Hoofnagle. None of the content attempts to explicitly persuade the reader.

Sources and References

Article appears to be properly referenced. From a PLP standpoint, most of the articles are sourced from Law Reviews, but that may be fine. Not sure if it matters, but most of the sources are from Hoofnagle himself. Given that the information is not particularly controversial, it may not be necessary to add contending viewpoints (if those even exist). Links are in good working order.

Minor Suggestions (Identity Theft; 2nd paragraph; 2nd sentence): "They lend money to thieves" sounds like a moral judgement against the banks, may be worth briefly expanding on the claim or the process that underlies it. On that note, it may be worth slightly elaborating on all of the charges in the sentence ("lend money to thieves," "Undergo non-payment," and "recharge victims after non-payment"). If these things are relevant to the assertion that financial institutions should be responsible for tracking identity crimes, it might be valuable to understand what they are and why they support that idea. (Consumer Privacy; Social Networking Services; 1st paragraph; 2nd sentence): "Although [social networks] seem free..." Social networks technically are free. Although I understand the rhetorical tool, it may be useful to retain a singular definition of payment as financial. Maybe something to the effect of "While [social networks] do not cost any money to access." (Consumer Privacy; Internet Tracking; 1st paragraph; 2nd sentence): Might sound cleaner as "Hoofnagle discovered that there was a dramatic increase in the use of standard cookies between 2009 and 2011." (Consumer Privacy; Commercial Data Brokers: 1st paragraph; 2nd Sentence): "CBD's perform law enforcement duty". Might be worth clarifying what that means. From a layman's POV I can't see how data collections is a law enforcement duty, although I can understand how there may be parallels. Overall Impressions

Article is very good. I don't know the breadth of the topic, so I can't speak to how much should be added. Seems to do a good job expounding on the various areas of Hoofnagles research. Stellasuperba (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)