Talk:Carding Fraud

The length of the article is about 930 words, which is a bit less than the required length. However, it is still within the acceptable range of 100 words shorter for a draft.

The article does include 3 major components of a good article. The author summarizes the issue in the opening paragraph, which gives the reader an overview of what is carding, who is considered as “carder” and how carding fraud causes ethical issues and losses in the United States. The body of the article also met the requirements, which was well organized into 3 main sections: Carding methods, prevention, and ethics & legality. The section on carding methods is very helpful to the reader as it talks about different methods that allow carders to obtain information. This section is also well drafted as it gives examples of past events about how the methods were used with references to reliable sources.

The issue at stake is clear to me. The author addresses multiple parties that are affected by carding fraud. This is important because anyone can be a victim to these actions. The author also talks about possible mitigations for merchants and card holders. If possible, adding possible mitigations for card issuers in the final draft would be a good idea. The author could also research if it’s ever possible to prevent carding fraud.

The author does not state any personal opinions and all statements are backed up with reliable references. However, the statements on the different ethical issues are a bit vague. The author could expand more on issues for each party in the final draft. Looking into any possible controversy about carding fraud is also a good idea. I.e., are there any groups that are victim blaming or defending this kind of activity? Adding card issuers’ responses to carding fraud, if possible, wouldn’t be a bad idea either.