I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for a week or so, and I am thinking about making a
WP:GA nomination. I'd like someone to check over it, and because it's the first time I'm doing a GA nomination, some advice regarding the article length and the suitability for a good article would be appreciated. Thanks, JML1148 (
Talk |
Contribs) 04:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comments from Neuroxic
Hello! I'm currently reading through the article section by section, here are my suggestions / comments. Disclaimer: although I plan to put an article through the
WP:GAN process later this year myself, I don't have any GAN articles under my belt, so use your editorial judgement!
Lead Section
The second sentence in the
WP:LEAD contains too many uses of the word "and"
Using the word "stolen" in the lead feels a bit strange. "Stolen" feels a bit sensationalist (even if 10 million users' details were illegally copied!), I think a more precise term could be used instead. It's not like someone broke into a house and stole a filing cabnet, rather they broke into a house and made scans of a filing cabnet. There are other terms that can be used, maybe use "copied" or something similar. There are not too many
WP:GA or higher articles on data breaches to reference, but
maia arson crimew is a GA article on a hacker, you may want to check out the language used there. In that article, the only time the word "stolen" appears is in a referece, which I think is telling.
Breach section
The news articles used in the first and second citations have authors, but the author names do not appear in the citations. Not including the authors in these cases is a fail of
WP:CITEWEB.
"unable to give numbers as to how many customers were affected" — the phrasing here feels strange.
The third citation is missing authorship info.
Given that the phrase "human error" is used in quotations in the source in citation 4, I think it should be in quotations in the article per
MOS:PMC, and the end of the sentence should have a citation.
"Now conducting a criminal investigation" should be rephrased per
MOS:SINCE.
Fifth citation missing authorship info.
The sentence beginning "The same day, a user on BreachForums..." is waaay too long and needs a citation.
Monero is a niche enough currency that what it is should be briefly summarized in parentheses after you use its name.
The sentence with quotations from the hacker ("too many eyes") needs a citation, basically whenever any source is directly quoted there needs to be a citation.
Governmental response section
The first sentence is too long.
7th citation needs author attribution.
The sentence beginning "The federal government" has too many uses of the word "and".
Double quotation mark in second O'Neil quotation.
9th citation needs author attribution.
Format currency per
MOS:$, the currency type should come before the number.
The sentence beginning "The federal government has also flagged..." is too long.
"hosted a roundtable with industry and civil society groups on cybersecurity following the data breach." — when did this happen?
Optus response section
The first sentence is too long.
Usual comments per citation attribution throughout this section.
The Services Australia "asking for the full details..." quote needs a citation.
I think saying "Optus will also pay for the replacement of..." is a bit imprecise. As with any company, there's no guarantee that they'll actually do it. I think it's better to phrase this as "Optus promised to pay for the replacement of..."
"Amount of Medicare numbers" should be replaced with "Number of Medicare ID numbers"
The line "A customer stated that,..." does not feel appropriate for an encyclopedic article; it could probably be rephrased in terms of customers being frustrated.
"Rosmarin continued Optus' claim" potentially violates
MOS:SAID.
The Rosmarin quote needs a citation.
Legal action section
Similar comments regarding citation attribution in this section.
The first sentence is too long.
The sentence "He is being charged..." is at odds tense-wise with "Su pleaded guilty..."
Including the abbreviation for Australian Communications and Media Authority even though the abbreviation is not used in the rest of the article is maybe not needed.
Final comments:
I enjoyed the article, and I think it's very important this event be documented. Thank you for your work!
I think with some additional work it will be ready for GAN, however I highly recommend you reach out to an editor who is knowledgeable regarding cyber security articles and have them read over the article too. I cannot gauge how complete it is.
Neuroxic (
talk) 16:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Neuroxic: Thank you for the feedback, I will start implementing this now. Sorry for the delay in response; I completely forgot about the peer review! Do you possibly know any editors that specifically work in cyber security? JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've gone through and made all of the changed besides the " "A customer stated that,..." part, as I wasn't sure exactly how to rephrase it. I'll leave this open in case other editors can give some more suggestions. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I might close this in a few days if this goes without any more feedback, as the peer review has been open for around two weeks and I feel pretty confident that this is at or near a GA level. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 03:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm going to close this and go to
WP:GAN. Thank you to Neuroxic for your advice. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 08:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for a week or so, and I am thinking about making a
WP:GA nomination. I'd like someone to check over it, and because it's the first time I'm doing a GA nomination, some advice regarding the article length and the suitability for a good article would be appreciated. Thanks, JML1148 (
Talk |
Contribs) 04:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Comments from Neuroxic
Hello! I'm currently reading through the article section by section, here are my suggestions / comments. Disclaimer: although I plan to put an article through the
WP:GAN process later this year myself, I don't have any GAN articles under my belt, so use your editorial judgement!
Lead Section
The second sentence in the
WP:LEAD contains too many uses of the word "and"
Using the word "stolen" in the lead feels a bit strange. "Stolen" feels a bit sensationalist (even if 10 million users' details were illegally copied!), I think a more precise term could be used instead. It's not like someone broke into a house and stole a filing cabnet, rather they broke into a house and made scans of a filing cabnet. There are other terms that can be used, maybe use "copied" or something similar. There are not too many
WP:GA or higher articles on data breaches to reference, but
maia arson crimew is a GA article on a hacker, you may want to check out the language used there. In that article, the only time the word "stolen" appears is in a referece, which I think is telling.
Breach section
The news articles used in the first and second citations have authors, but the author names do not appear in the citations. Not including the authors in these cases is a fail of
WP:CITEWEB.
"unable to give numbers as to how many customers were affected" — the phrasing here feels strange.
The third citation is missing authorship info.
Given that the phrase "human error" is used in quotations in the source in citation 4, I think it should be in quotations in the article per
MOS:PMC, and the end of the sentence should have a citation.
"Now conducting a criminal investigation" should be rephrased per
MOS:SINCE.
Fifth citation missing authorship info.
The sentence beginning "The same day, a user on BreachForums..." is waaay too long and needs a citation.
Monero is a niche enough currency that what it is should be briefly summarized in parentheses after you use its name.
The sentence with quotations from the hacker ("too many eyes") needs a citation, basically whenever any source is directly quoted there needs to be a citation.
Governmental response section
The first sentence is too long.
7th citation needs author attribution.
The sentence beginning "The federal government" has too many uses of the word "and".
Double quotation mark in second O'Neil quotation.
9th citation needs author attribution.
Format currency per
MOS:$, the currency type should come before the number.
The sentence beginning "The federal government has also flagged..." is too long.
"hosted a roundtable with industry and civil society groups on cybersecurity following the data breach." — when did this happen?
Optus response section
The first sentence is too long.
Usual comments per citation attribution throughout this section.
The Services Australia "asking for the full details..." quote needs a citation.
I think saying "Optus will also pay for the replacement of..." is a bit imprecise. As with any company, there's no guarantee that they'll actually do it. I think it's better to phrase this as "Optus promised to pay for the replacement of..."
"Amount of Medicare numbers" should be replaced with "Number of Medicare ID numbers"
The line "A customer stated that,..." does not feel appropriate for an encyclopedic article; it could probably be rephrased in terms of customers being frustrated.
"Rosmarin continued Optus' claim" potentially violates
MOS:SAID.
The Rosmarin quote needs a citation.
Legal action section
Similar comments regarding citation attribution in this section.
The first sentence is too long.
The sentence "He is being charged..." is at odds tense-wise with "Su pleaded guilty..."
Including the abbreviation for Australian Communications and Media Authority even though the abbreviation is not used in the rest of the article is maybe not needed.
Final comments:
I enjoyed the article, and I think it's very important this event be documented. Thank you for your work!
I think with some additional work it will be ready for GAN, however I highly recommend you reach out to an editor who is knowledgeable regarding cyber security articles and have them read over the article too. I cannot gauge how complete it is.
Neuroxic (
talk) 16:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Neuroxic: Thank you for the feedback, I will start implementing this now. Sorry for the delay in response; I completely forgot about the peer review! Do you possibly know any editors that specifically work in cyber security? JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I've gone through and made all of the changed besides the " "A customer stated that,..." part, as I wasn't sure exactly how to rephrase it. I'll leave this open in case other editors can give some more suggestions. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)reply
I might close this in a few days if this goes without any more feedback, as the peer review has been open for around two weeks and I feel pretty confident that this is at or near a GA level. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 03:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm going to close this and go to
WP:GAN. Thank you to Neuroxic for your advice. JML1148 (
talk |
contribs) 08:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)reply