This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Optus data breach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2022 Optus data breach has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Word up, this should probably be a GA. SN54129 11:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry that the topic (economics and business) doesn't fit very well, I put it down because it fit the best of the topics, and GAN helper didn't seem to have an option to put it under Miscellaneous (or I missed it). JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 08:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This is solid work, especially for a first stab at the GA process. I looked it over at the PR, but wasn't able to comment at the time.
The biggest issue you have is the lead. Leads are tricky and neglecting them common, but all data on how readers engage with Wikipedia consistently presents them as the most important part of the article; in mobile view, for instance, 60% of readers only see the lead and don't open any of the sections. This article is over 1700 words, but has two sentences for a lead. You easily have the content for 2-3 paragraphs summarizing the article.
There are a few other points to make, but I'll go line-through-line once the lead expands somewhat, because the prose might be too subject to change before then. Vaticidal prophet 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The 2022 Optus data breach occurred in September 2022 to Australian telecommunications company Optus-- This is the kind of article for which MOS:BOLDTITLE notes traditional 'article titles followed by summaries' sound a bit awkward. There aren't many high-quality articles about data breaches to compare to. It may be better to write this in a way that doesn't focus on getting the exact words "2022 Optus data breach" in; alternatively, if you want to retain the title, it could be rephrased to mention the importance of the breach and then get into 'dates and players' in the next sentence. Done Merged and reworded the first two sentences. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting claims have been made about how the breach happened; Optus presented it as a complicated attack on their systems, while an Optus insider and the Australian government have ascribed it to human error). Done Removed all appearences of "however". JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
More to come. Vaticidal prophet 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated that "These new measures will assist in protecting customers from scams, and in system-wide fraud detection"seems to be a statement where you can summarize why Chalmers wanted these changes rather than just quote him on it, for instance, and
Optus CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin apologised for the attack on behalf of the company, saying that "We are deeply sorry"seems a little obvious (shouldn't something like that be assumed to appear in the statement?). I'd recommend going through the use of quotes to see which are justified. Vaticidal prophet 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
A few bullet points:
The one aspect of the article I'm most concerned about, outside of bullet points, is the coverage of Dennis Su. This is tricky -- he's a very young man and a low-profile individual, but he's nonetheless the current best-known case of someone actually trying to exploit the hack, so he does need to come up. It'll be worth keeping an eye on this section as the months/years go by; many articles about events devolve over the long term into "lists of things that happened", and as well as maintaining it to prevent that, a time will probably come where having a whole paragraph about Su isn't called for anymore.
The big phrasing that sticks out to me is "avoided jail", which is the term the news media uses, but not an accurate reflection of how criminal sentencing works in this country -- the chances of a young first offender who pleaded guilty doing what he did going to prison are basically negligible. The phrasing gives the same impression as a lot of media reporting on court cases that Su had a real chance of going to prison that he "avoided"/"got off lightly", especially juxtaposed with the mention of the extremely high but contextually theoretical maximum sentence. It's definitely worth using an alternative phrasing here, and also contextualizing what a community corrections order is (our article on probation is...terrible, but maybe not worse than nothing?). Vaticidal prophet 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by JML1148 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2022 Optus data breach; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ JML1148: Good article. But, I don't see anywhere in the source or in the article that the breach effected over a third of all Australians. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2022 Optus data breach article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2022 Optus data breach has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Word up, this should probably be a GA. SN54129 11:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry that the topic (economics and business) doesn't fit very well, I put it down because it fit the best of the topics, and GAN helper didn't seem to have an option to put it under Miscellaneous (or I missed it). JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 08:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet ( talk · contribs) 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
This is solid work, especially for a first stab at the GA process. I looked it over at the PR, but wasn't able to comment at the time.
The biggest issue you have is the lead. Leads are tricky and neglecting them common, but all data on how readers engage with Wikipedia consistently presents them as the most important part of the article; in mobile view, for instance, 60% of readers only see the lead and don't open any of the sections. This article is over 1700 words, but has two sentences for a lead. You easily have the content for 2-3 paragraphs summarizing the article.
There are a few other points to make, but I'll go line-through-line once the lead expands somewhat, because the prose might be too subject to change before then. Vaticidal prophet 18:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The 2022 Optus data breach occurred in September 2022 to Australian telecommunications company Optus-- This is the kind of article for which MOS:BOLDTITLE notes traditional 'article titles followed by summaries' sound a bit awkward. There aren't many high-quality articles about data breaches to compare to. It may be better to write this in a way that doesn't focus on getting the exact words "2022 Optus data breach" in; alternatively, if you want to retain the title, it could be rephrased to mention the importance of the breach and then get into 'dates and players' in the next sentence. Done Merged and reworded the first two sentences. JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting claims have been made about how the breach happened; Optus presented it as a complicated attack on their systems, while an Optus insider and the Australian government have ascribed it to human error). Done Removed all appearences of "however". JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 00:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
More to come. Vaticidal prophet 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated that "These new measures will assist in protecting customers from scams, and in system-wide fraud detection"seems to be a statement where you can summarize why Chalmers wanted these changes rather than just quote him on it, for instance, and
Optus CEO Kelly Bayer Rosmarin apologised for the attack on behalf of the company, saying that "We are deeply sorry"seems a little obvious (shouldn't something like that be assumed to appear in the statement?). I'd recommend going through the use of quotes to see which are justified. Vaticidal prophet 09:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
A few bullet points:
The one aspect of the article I'm most concerned about, outside of bullet points, is the coverage of Dennis Su. This is tricky -- he's a very young man and a low-profile individual, but he's nonetheless the current best-known case of someone actually trying to exploit the hack, so he does need to come up. It'll be worth keeping an eye on this section as the months/years go by; many articles about events devolve over the long term into "lists of things that happened", and as well as maintaining it to prevent that, a time will probably come where having a whole paragraph about Su isn't called for anymore.
The big phrasing that sticks out to me is "avoided jail", which is the term the news media uses, but not an accurate reflection of how criminal sentencing works in this country -- the chances of a young first offender who pleaded guilty doing what he did going to prison are basically negligible. The phrasing gives the same impression as a lot of media reporting on court cases that Su had a real chance of going to prison that he "avoided"/"got off lightly", especially juxtaposed with the mention of the extremely high but contextually theoretical maximum sentence. It's definitely worth using an alternative phrasing here, and also contextualizing what a community corrections order is (our article on probation is...terrible, but maybe not worse than nothing?). Vaticidal prophet 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 06:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by JML1148 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/2022 Optus data breach; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: @ JML1148: Good article. But, I don't see anywhere in the source or in the article that the breach effected over a third of all Australians. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 02:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)