User talk:Hotpink789!

This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/PLP_-_Berkeley_Interdisciplinary_Research_Group_on_Privacy_-_Coleman_Lab_(Spring_21) .

hello !

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

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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

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)[reply]

Peer Review Week 7

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)[reply]

Week 8 Peer Review

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[reply]

Week 9 Peer Review #2

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.

Images and media: The image with description of the image fits well with this article. Gives context to the audience.

Overall: Great job! There wasn't much to constructive criticize on! 99rebound (talk)