User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox

Article Feedback (Leadership)

Great start to your article! I like how you have organized your article so far with a specific section about the various types of Identity-Based Security. Your article so far is balanced and maintains a neutral tone. Good job incorporating your research into the article so far. Currently, you are only using 8 sources for your entire article. You need to use all 20 sources from your bibliography in your article.

Here are some suggestions:

• Add more citations throughout your article.
  • For example, the 2nd paragraph in the facial recognition section does not have any citations.
  • The lead should also have a citation after the first sentence.
• Add more hyperlinks to other articles throughout the article.
  • For example, “security,” “authentication,” and “password” in the lead section
• The lead should introduce each section of your article, so make sure that you mention key points from all of the sections in the lead.
• Sub-sections should be formatted as Headings
• This is a quote from an article that is directly used "about a third of online purchases are abandoned at checkout because consumers cannot remember their passwords."
  • You need to include a citation after this direct quote.

Peer review (HanMiKC)

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? SpongebobSquarepants25
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox

Lead

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and easy to understand. It includes a brief description of most of the sections in the article, save for the history and controversies. Possibly including a sentence introducing the history would be good too.

Content

Content evaluation

The content is well-written and up-to-date. All the information included makes sense. It doesn't address underrepresented populations, but it does talk about controversies, which can be considered taboo topics.

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone is neutral and there is no persuasion towards one side or the other. The controversies section provided a balance between the positives and negatives of this technology.

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation

The sources are diverse, relevant, and the few links I checked worked. I'm unsure if more sources need to be added to include all the annotations from your bibliography.

Organization

Organization evaluation

The content is organized in a way that makes sense. I could not find any outright grammar errors.

Images and Media

Images and media evaluation

No images to evaluate.

For New Articles Only

New Article Evaluation

The article is hyperlinked to make it more discoverable, and there are plenty of sources, with more to potentially be added. The format is a bit off, though. Make sure the format of the title is under "Page Title" and not "Heading", and then fix the format of the rest of the sections accordingly.

Overall impressions

Overall evaluation

Overall, the contents of the article are well written. The changes I suggest are in the other evaluation sections. Just double check your formatting before you upload it onto the mainspace.

Peer Review (Jameswang323)

Lead

The lead section is really concise and covers all the content mentioned in the article. As you add more content, perhaps expand this lead section a bit more.

Content

The content is good so far! I would consider adding more content as well. Right now you have identity security types, but maybe consider adding some examples under each section. I also think you can expand on your history section by including more examples. Lastly, you can consider the pros and cons of identity security technologies and how they function.

Organization

The organization is good! As you add more content, break them down into subheadings to make it easier to read for the readers.

Tone and Balance

The tone is very neutral. The article lists categories of identity security types and give some examples, so it maintains a neutral tone.

Sources

Need to add all 20 sources, right now you need 9 more. For the sources added, they seem recent and relevant to your article, so good job on that!

Overall Impression

I like the content so far and I think your article is an interesting topic that can expand into a lot of other contents. Consider adding more content like the ones I mentioned above. Also consider adding your remaining sources and add some images to portray the examples you provided. Also consider adding hyperlinks to other related articles!

Peer Review (Lolabaylo)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? SpongebobSquarepants25
• Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead seems fleshed out and provides a succinct overview of identity-based security.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes; the introductory sentence is informative, concise, and provides a good overview of identity-based security.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does include a brief description of the types of identity-based security, which is detailed in the article's sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise and clear; it is not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

The lead is concise and provides a great overview of identity-based security. It briefly mentions all sections in the rest of the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes - all content is related to identity-based security.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes - the majority of content discusses modern-day identity-based security systems (such as those used by Google and other tech companies).
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. The article is a bit short, though. The article could be improved with the addition of more sections.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No; however, I think it would be difficult to address equity gaps in this article because the main topic does not concern historically underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation

The content is up-to-date and relevant to the overarching article topic. Adding some more sections could help strengthen the quality and thoroughness of the article, however.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral - there are no subjective statements.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No - the writing and content aims to inform, not persuade, the audience.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, the content is good - it's neutral, unbiased, and aims to inform objectively.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most content is backed up with references. However, the Lead section and the "Facial recognition" section do not include any citations/references.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources do seem thorough; however, there are only 6 sources listed. Adding your remaining 14 sources could help strengthen this article overall.
• Are the sources current? Yes - most seem to have been published in the late 2010s.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources come from a diversity of sources, including non-profits/think tanks (Electronic Frontier Foundation), traditional news outlets, and academic journals.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation

Sources seem good. Adding your remaining 14 sources would help strengthen the article overall!

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes - the content is easy to understand and concise.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No grammatical errors found.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The organization is intuitive - I like how the first section is "History" and provides a background on the topic before jumping into contemporary points.

Organization evaluation

The content is clear, succinct, and well-organized!

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

N/A

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 - there are 6 sources provided.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The list of sources is a bit short; consider adding your remaining 14 sources.
• 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 - it has intuitive organization and the sections are ordered similar to other Wikipedia articles.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

New Article Evaluation

The article has good sources, but could benefit from the addition of more. Overall, a good start to a new Wikipedia article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The content provides good detail on identity-based security.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The content clearly and succinctly describes identity-based security, and details the main types of identity-based security.
• How can the content added be improved? Adding more sections and sources could help improve this article.

Overall evaluation

Overall, I this article is really good! Consider adding more sources and sections to make it even more thorough.

Peer Review (Hiiisparks)

Lead

I thought it was a good idea to bold the name of your topic in your lead as it draws attention to what you are focusing on and mimics others Wikipedia articles. I'm assuming all the stuff that you said was included in the article is not going to stay? If you aren't including it, your lead is very concise and gets straight to the point. If you are, you can try integrating it into your lead or body paragraphs and delete it so that it is an easy read from top to bottom for your draft. For your written lead, I think you can be a little bit more specific on the "access to digital products..." part such as saying "focuses on granting specific users access (part taken from prior article)...." You can also link some Wiki links to fingerprinting and facial recognition.

Content

I liked how you have a types of identity-based security section, which can add really good information to the topic. For the Identity-based access control, although you cite the source, you also have to be careful with plagiarism and should reword the definition in your own words. I assume you will also be adding more to that section, and it'll make it more clear to the readers what IBAC actually is. I think also you did a great job with the types of identity recognition, with the biometrics and passwords. I believe there are some more physiological biometrics such as hand geometry that you can talk about, but I know you will be continuing to add more. Keep it up!

Organization

I think I am a bit confused as to what the section "Identity-based access control" is for. It seems to be a part of the process of authorizing people, so maybe it can be a part of a bigger section/header that talks about how the process works. Just overall try to make it more clear the purpose of this section. The rest of the body is well organized and easy for the readers to follow along. As you add more (such as the history, vulnerabilities or identity authentication, etc.) continue to organize like how you did for the "Types" section and it'll be great!

Tone and Balance

I think you are very neutral and relay the information as very factual. I don't see any opinionated statements. If I were to say anything about the balance of the article, i think that for the account login section, there is a lot of data compared to the explanation. Maybe adjust by limiting the studies you include or try to add more description to balance it out.

Sources

If you are using the section from the original article, one important citation that is needed is the sentence about the NIST definition, and adding it will show the readers where this is defined. I think you also have to add a source to the second paragraph in the facial recognition section for the two types of failure. Other than that, good use of sources!

Overall Impression

It is evident that you did a lot of research for the types of identity authentication, and as you continue to add more I hope the rest of the article will follow suit. You did a great job with staying neutral with stating the information. I again liked how you bolded the name of your topic. The article is on a great start, and I look forward to seeing how your article improves! Good work. ~~~~

Peer Review (Madssnake)

(Week 8 review)

Lead

I like how you cut out some of the unnecessary parts from the old lead. Now, your new lead is concise and still informative about identity-based security. Especially since a lot of the old article did not have sources, it is good to cut that information out. You also do a good job of briefly prefacing the following sections.

Content

I like how your content touches upon a range of online security that deals with identity-based security, and includes a statistic from Phys Org.

Copy edit/ suggestion: I would move the “(IBAC)” from the section header to the actual paragraph after “Identity-based Access Control”.

Tone and Balance

Overall, you present information with a neutral tone. However, I would point out that you only mention the faults of account logins and facial recognition, and not really any for the fingerprint section––I think it would be good to include the pros and cons for each if you can, so the information stays unbiased as well. That way, you can also balance the amount of content per subsection (right now the fingerprint section is shorter).

Sources and References

I like how you link a lot of Wikipedia pages in your article, and I think you can add even more (e.g. biometrics, authentication, etc). Also, don’t forget to cite in your last paragraph! I noticed that you only have 5 sources so far, and they don’t really follow our lab’s bibliography format, so I would update my citations to be ASA format with links and dates included (so right now, I can’t tell when some of your sources were written). As for the original content (If you choose to keep it), I would try to add sources that can back up that information if possible.

Organization

I really like the organization of your article; I think it flows nicely and makes sense. I like how you divided up the types of identity-based security, and put them in a rough chronological order of development as well.

Overall impressions

Overall, I enjoyed reading this article and it made me think about the current devices I use today. As mentioned earlier, I would add some more sources and a negative point about fingerprinting, to balance out the content. I think it would also be helpful to have a See Also section at the end, so people can read more about general cybersecurity and other related topics. Great job so far! Madssnake (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review round 2 (Nicholas100000)

Lead

The article has a good introductory sentence, and the lead is concise. This may be a personal preference but when I first use an acronym, I usually type the whole name out first, then I use the acronym. This is talking about the use of NIST from the current article. I also like how you define what identity based security and identity based access control is.

Content

The content so far is relevant to the topic and explains the different types of identity based security. The content is also up to data as it uses 5 articles from 2019-2020. I would like to see a section on the impact of identity based security, but I know this is only a draft so far, and you have more information to input.

Tone and Balance

The tone is neutral and only explains how the types of identity based security works and other related facts. When there is an opinion, you made sure to cite who's opinion it was such as "a study by MasterCard and University of oxford..." Which does a good job of making it neutral.

Sources and References

I tested 2 of the sources and they work. There are some parts not backed by a source such as the definition o identity-based security, the last 2 sentences under Fingerprint, and the last paragraph under facial recognition. The sources that are there are current.

Organization

The content is concisely written and easy to read. I saw no grammatical or spelling errors. The content is also well organized by its headers.

Images and Media

There is currently no images.

Overall impressions

Overall, the article is strongly written. From the parts that are there, they are easy to read and informative. The sources are also very up to date, most so far from 2020. The weakness so far is that I think is there is still a lot of information I think is missing, such as impact. However, you still have to add 15 sources so I am sure you just have not added it yet.

Peer review (Showtime oski)

Lead

The Lead section is much more concise than the current article's Lead. The Lead section's introductory sentence is also concise and easy to understand. It previews the article's main topics which is great! It is not overly detailed and does not contain information that is not present in the article.

Content

The content is relevant and up-to-date (based on the bibliography, the most recent article was from 2019, which is great!). There is no content that does not belong. The content does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, but could. For example, you could talk about how facial recognition technology is biased towards recognizing white people.

Copy edits:

In your "Account Login subsection, the phrase "most individuals keep passwords different or at least a variant of their password in every account" can be more concise; maybe something like, "most individuals differentiate or vary passwords for each account."

In your "Facial Recognition" section, the phrase "with a data set but not the data set of the actual user's image" is a bit wordy. (It's mostly the repetition of "data set".) Try to make it more concise, if possible.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. Nor are there any viewpoints that seem overrepresented. I do not know what other sections or information you will add, but nothing in the current draft seems to be underrepresented.

This is just my opinion, and other peer reviewers might disagree, but in your "Facial Recognition" section, your use of the second person (specifically in the phrase "for you to take several tries logging in rather than randomly granting a stranger access to your phone") is too informal. Rephrase it to make it third person, like "it is more optimal for a user to...."

Sources and References

The sources are current. I checked all of the links, and they all work.

Some of your claims (those in the "Fingerprint" section in particular) don't seem to be backed up by a source. Do they come form the same Identity Automation source? If so, you should cite it for your factual claims about fingerprint uniqueness and where fingerprint biometric authentication is most commonly used.

One of your sources, Phys Org, is a website; I assume it is going to be one of your "extras." You also might want to link Phys Org to a Wikipedia article if one exists or to an external site.

Organization

Your writing, overall, is clear and concise. There were only several of instances where I suggested you make edits.

Your editing was great because it was logical, and the article was broken up at appropriate places (ex., types of identity-based security, followed by subsections for each type).

A formatting note: you should change your main section title font style from Sub-heading to Heading (the difference is that the latter is not bolded, but is underlined).

Overall impressions

Great job with the draft so far! It was easy for me to learn what your topic was about because it was clearly written and easy to read. The only area I would suggest you improve is that you expand your article and incorporate more journal sources.

First Draft Peer review (Nankingaszz)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • SpongebobSquarepants25
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The lead is updated and includes new information. It does have an introductory sentence that defines what is Identity-based security. There is a contents table which has an overview about the article's main topics. There does not seem to be a brief description of major sections in the lead section, but everything mentioned in the lead is discussed in the article. There is an overlap of the topic's definitions both from the original writer and my peer. The lead it's concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

The first section of the content is an introduction of a new concept: Identity-based Access Control. I believe a link to how this idea relates to Identity-based security would make it more logical. Then there is introduction of different types of Identity-based security, which is relevant to the topic. The content is up-to-date. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added is neutral and not biased towards a position. It's not persuading the reader to one position over another; instead, it claims facts.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The new content is backed up by reliable sources and is used to reflect back on the topic. The source is current because it was published in 2017. Currently the article's majority of source is from one writer. The link does work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

It's concise and easy to read; there is no grammatical or spelling errors. The section that introduces different types of Identity-based security reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• 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

There is no image currently.

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?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

The added content provides more information about different categories of the topic. It is supported by sources and has various citations. It can be improved by adding more images and a explanation of why the section "Identity-based Access Control" is there.

First Draft Peer review (Bobalily)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? SpongebobSquarepants25
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

I think the lead that the wikipedia article originally has is great with the addition you added. It states the importance of the topic and reflects important information. However, it would be great if you can reference your source when you write a statement. For example, the sentence you wrote “The most common form of identity-based security involves the login of an account with a username and password. However, recent technology has evolved into fingerprinting or facial recognition,” where did you find this information? Also, it is overly detailed as it is the longest in length compared to other sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

Since not much is added to the draft for now, I would think adding more information as the week goes would balance out the article better in terms of representing viewpoints and containing more information about the topic. I cannot tell if the content is up-to-date or not because the sources are from a website instead of a peer-review article or journal so that the reference sections does not explicitly say the year published.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The article is so far neutral which is excellent. I do not think I could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article. There is not words or phrases that doe not feel neutral. The article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

So far, only two sources is referenced in the article, and only three sentences are connected to a source, so it can be more reliable. Three sources are listed, but two of them are the same(this might be an error). Also, the sources reference are websites and not scholarly peer-reviewed articles or journals so it is not very reliable.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

It is clear to read, but the lead needs some correction. The content does not have grammatical or spelling errors. The sections are clearly organised. I like how you made use of headings, subheadings, and bolding.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• 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

No images.

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?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation

Not a new article.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Overall, great job! The first draft needs more information included and resources have to be from peer-reviewed articles or journal instead of websites online. I really like how you made use of feature on wikipedia which makes the organisation clear and easy to read, which is very important to keep readers engaged! It is a hard semester and it is very likely our first time writing an article to be published on wikipedia which is super exciting! Hope midterms are going well, and happy halloween!!

~~~~Bobalily

Article 1

Information Privacy: Information privacy

Lead

- The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It also includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It does not contain information that is not present in the article and it is very concise.

Content

- The article's content are relevant to the topic, and the content can be seen as up-to-date since it includes examples and laws from 2012-2019. There is no content that is missing but the article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

- The article seems fairly neutral, covering a wide range of subjects related to the main topic. The article also does not seem to favor any point of view.

Sources and References

- All facts in the article are backed by a source. The sources seem thorough with quite a number of different types of sources. The sources are all relatively current (from the 21st century). However, it also contains relatively old sources (one from 1976). They do not include sources written by historically marginalized individuals. Links seem to work.

Organization

- The article generally seems easy-to-read with no grammatical errors. It is also well organized.

Images and Media

- No, the article does not include images.

Checking the talk page

- In the talk section, I saw ongoing discussions about privacy protection in numerous countries such as India and China. There has also been edits to cut out phrases that might hint at being opinionated. It is rated as quality C.

Overall Impressions

- Overall, I think this is a well-written and detailed page on Information Privacy. However, I believe it can be improved by including recent events relating to Information Privacy on a global scale.

Article 2

Global Surveillance: Global surveillance

Lead

- The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic. It also includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It does not contain information that is not present in the article, but some sections seem to be too long (historical background).

Content

- The article's content are relevant to the topic, and the content can be seen as up-to-date since it includes examples and current events in the 21st century. There is no content that is missing but the article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

- The article seems fairly neutral, covering a wide range of subjects related to the main topic. The article also does not seem to favor any point of view.Sources and References

- All facts in the article are backed by a source. The sources seem extremely thorough with quite a number of different types of sources. The sources are all relatively current (from the 21st century). They do not include sources written by historically marginalized individuals. Links seem to work.

Organization

- The article generally seems easy-to-read with no grammatical errors. It is also very well organized, offering a myriad of countries and corporations and their relation with global surveillance.

Images and Media

- The article does include images that enhance the understanding of the topic, and they are all well-captioned and thoroughly sourced.

Checking the talk page

- In the talk section, I saw a post about fixing reference errors that can be found in the article. It is rated as quality C.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think this is an excellent article that offers practical and realistic examples related to the topic of global surveillance. I believe it can be improved if it made some of the longer paragraphs more concise.

Contributions to the Assigned Privacy + Topic

In my article, I wish to further reinforce the importance of online identification and its impact on social communities as well as financial transactions.

Improving Existing Article

- Elaborate on how Identity-based security relate to receiving access to online resources

- Expand on how money and paid subscriptions relate to Identity-based security

Peer review (ExploreDragon)

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? SpongebobSquarepants25
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SpongebobSquarepants25/sandbox#Identity-based Security (Draft)

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
• 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? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Lead evaluation

The lead in general is in a good shape. But I feel the first intro sentence is a little vague. What is "a type of security" exactly? To me, it seems using a word appears in the topic to explain it is not that clear.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation

The sections now are definitely all to the point, but you may I consider to expand its length. I know it is frustrated to think about how to add more sections.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Some of your sentences are that backed up by sources. For example, the second paragraph in "Facial Recognition".

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

Some of the sentences can be rephrased into a shorter and easier to read format.

Identity-based security is a type of security that focuses on access to digital products or services based on the an individual's authenticated identity of an individual.

Fingerprinting, however, although not digital when it was first introduced,

systems as a method of identification. an identification method

The most common form of Identity-based security involves

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved? Brainstorm about more relevant contents around

Overall evaluation

The content so far is definitely well written. Just think about what are some possible sections you may add.

Identity-based Security (Draft)

Identity-based security is a type of security that focuses on access to digital products or services based on the authenticated identity of an individual. It ensures that the users of these digital services are entitled to what they receive. The most common form of identity-based security involves the login of an account with a username and password. However, recent technology has evolved into fingerprinting or facial recognition.

While most forms of identity-based security are secure and reliable, none of them are perfect and each contains its own flaws and issues.

History

The earliest forms of Identity-based security was introduced in the 1960s by computer scientist Fernando Corbató. During this time, Corbató invented computer passwords to prevent users from going through other people's files, a problem evident in his Compatible Time-Sharing System (C.T.S.S.), which allowed multiple users access to a computer concurrently. Fingerprinting however, although not digital when first introduced, dates back even further to the 2nd and 3rd century, with King Hammurabi sealing contracts through his fingerprints in ancient Babylon. Evidence of fingerprinting was also discovered in ancient China as a method of identification in official courts and documents. It was then introduced in the U.S. during the early 20th century through prison systems as a method of identification. On the other hand, facial recognition was developed in the 1960s, funded by American intelligence agencies and the military.

Types of Identity-based Security

Account Login

The most common form of Identity-based security is password authentication involving the login of an online account. Most of the largest digital corporations rely on this form of security, such as Facebook, Google, and Amazon. Account logins are easy to register, difficult to compromise, and offer a simple solution to identity-based digital services.

Fingerprint

Fingerprint biometric authentication is another type of identity-based security. It is considered to be one of the most secure forms of identification due to its reliability and accessibility, in addition to it being extremely hard to fake. Fingerprints are also unique for every person, lasting a lifetime without significant change. Currently, fingerprint biometric authentication are most commonly used in police stations, security industries, as well as smart-phones.

Facial Recognition

Facial recognition operates by first capturing an image of the face. Then, a computer algorithm determines the distinctiveness of the face, including but not limited to eye location, shape of chin, or distance from the nose. The algorithm then converts this information into a database, with each set of data having enough detail to distinguish one face from another.

Controversies and Issues

Account Login

A problem of this form of security is the tendency for consumers to forget their passwords. On average, an individual is registered to 25 online accounts requiring a password, and most individuals vary passwords for each account. According to a study by Mastercard and the University of Oxford, "about a third of online purchases are abandoned at checkout because consumers cannot remember their passwords." If the consumer does forget their password, they will usually have to request a password reset sent to their linked email account, further delaying the purchasing process. According to an article published by Phys Org, 18.75% of consumers abandon checkout due to password reset issues.

When individuals set a uniform password across all online platforms, this makes the login process much simpler and hard to forget. However, by doing so, it introduces another issue where a security breach in one account will lead to similar breaches in all remaining accounts, jeopardizing their online security. This makes the solution to remembering all passwords much harder to achieve.

Fingerprint

While fingerprinting is generally considered to be secure and reliable, the physical condition of one's finger during the scan can drastically affect its results. For example, physical injuries, differing displacement, and skin conditions can all lead to faulty and unreliable biometric information that may deny one's authorization.

Another issue with fingerprinting is known as the biometric sensor attack. In such an attack, a fake finger or a print of the finger is used in replacement to fool the sensors and grant authentication to unauthorized personnel.

Facial Recognition

Facial recognition relies on the face of an individual to identify and grant access to products, services, or information. However, it can be fraudulent due to limitations in technology (lighting, image resolution) as well as changes in facial structures over time.

There are two types of failure for facial recognition tests. The first is a false positive, where the database matches the image with a data set but not the data set of the actual user's image. The other type of failure is a false negative, where the database fails to recognize the face of the correct user. Both types of failure have trade-offs with accessibility and security, which make the percentage of each type of error significant. For instance, a facial recognition on a smart-phone would much rather have instances of false negatives rather than false positives since it is more optimal for you to take several tries logging in rather than randomly granting a stranger access to your phone.

While in ideal conditions with perfect lighting, positioning, and camera placement, facial recognition technology can be as accurate as 99.97%. However, such conditions are extremely rare and therefore unrealistic. In a study conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), video-recorded facial recognition accuracy ranged from 94.4% to 36% depending on camera placement as well as the nature of the setting.

Aside from the technical deficiencies of Facial Recognition, racial bias has also emerged as a controversial subject. A federal study in 2019 concluded that facial recognition systems falsely identified Black and Asian faces 10 to 100 times more often than White faces.