Paper Review - Onions

 Onions can make people cry

The Form

    Being the part of the article that drew me towards it in the first place, it also made me more skeptical towards the article as a whole. Whereas every single other project had a rather academic and concise name, this one had a name not perhaps very fitting of a regular Wikipedia article - instead seeming more like a journalist's take on a popular browser (Which the entire page reminded me of, though that is only natural, given that the light scope of the groupwork means going too in-depth is more of a detriment than anything else. 

    There were a few grammatical errors (Such as "Due to the bitcoin, the dark web has flourished"), but they were not all too prevalent throughout the entire page - one would assume that this entire thing was not really proofread either, given that it was mostly written just a few days before the final deadline. I am not sure if the group had a separate document file where they somehow shared and collaborated on their work (And if they did, why would one ever do that is beyond me), but all the contributions are made by a single person. If they really were alone, props to them for getting it done by themselves.

The Data

    I was instantly caught by the "Dark Web: Unknown proportion". While it is true that we do not have knowledge of the exact amount of information in the dark web, we have a solid estimate (around 5% of total information). The most significant blunder was the description of the deep web noting that users need to use the hidden wiki to access the deep web. One would think that an article about the dark web and its browser wouldn't mix up the deep web [which does not require hidden wiki] and the dark web [which the hidden wiki is directly related to]. Despite the dark web being a subset of the deep web, it can really confuse people and it made me stop for a moment to just check if what I saw was correct. The deep web merely means that the content is not indexed to search engines and normally requires authorization or a direct link - that's it. 

    Aside from those very obvious blunders, not much negative sprung to mind. Everything was explained rather concisely and in a very clear and understandable manner using decent language. Every single paragraph was referenced (albeit some were very vague references which almost seemed like a reference for the sake of having a reference, even if it was common knowledge). Nevertheless, it made the text look more like a genuine Wikipedia article that is semi-trustworthy as it should be. 

Structure

    This is probably the best part of this article - it looks and feels almost like a real article without having enormous walls of text or pictures painted smack in the middle of two paragraphs (like some projects do). Everything is very clearly segmented and if I were curious about just one part, it would not be of any effort to find it and get a quick overview. As mentioned earlier, that is also one of the strengths of this article - the conciseness of it. There is not a lot of "talk for the sake of talk" and it serves its purpose of giving an uneducated person an express overview of the technology at hand. I do not know why, but it is simply just better to look at this than a few other examples. It might just be my preference for short text and consistent formatting, who knows.    

    Despite all that, the article is however a little short - which could potentially be attributed to there only seemingly being a single member, though if that is not the case, then it is definitely lacking. This also makes finding things to review or comment on a little difficult, since there's just.. not a whole lot of it - especially when it comes to the conclusion.. Does a wikipedia article even need a conclusion? It could also benefit from one-two more pictures, as the text feels dull without them and the only picture is a rather boring graph.

Conclusion

    If it truly is the project of a single person, then it is a rather well-formatted and concise short article that conveys all the information it needs with just a few errors and plenty of references. If it is an actual groupwork, then it is cutting itself a little bit too short and bland, probably needing a few more vibrant examples and pictures to liven the wiki up. Nevertheless, definitely feels like a more-less solid and realistic Wikipedia article and that definitely deserves props.