Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to WP:FAC. I'm pretty sure that all major details relevant to the article are covered, but I'd like to get it checked over for anything that may be missing before nominating it, or any gaps that may disqualify it. Copyediting-related suggestions aren't necessary; I'll take it to WP:GOCE before nominating it.
Thanks, JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Not really experienced with WP:FAC but I do want do a bit of a review since this falls under the "related to cybersecurity" category.
noting the lack of a secure mail/messaging contact or bug bountiesWas there no contact information at all? or no security specific email address/contact ? This statement is a bit ambigious :)
believed to be legitimate by some cybersecurity experts,- I think this is implied, it might instead be usefull to point out that some cybersecurity experts thought this might be a hoax, if there was a significant minority/majority of them
some cybersecurity expertsbtw, who were they? can we name names?
The government could not assist with the clean-up following the breach, or compel Optus to give government services information.why, what stopped them ?
including a new cyber office- Can you explain what "cyber office" is and what it's duties were ?
a second number to driver's licenses were fast-tracked- How does this relate to cybersecurity/making drivers licenses more secure, maybe that could be explained?
This were the nitpicks I found on a initial read through. Sohom ( talk) 14:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This article looks very familiar, especially the Macquaire Park image, but I can't place where I was involved with it earlier. So my apologies if any of this is stuff I've said before. This isn't a full review, just a few things that stood out to me on a quick read.
@ JML1148: This has been open since October, and it has been a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed, or are you seeking more comments? Z1720 ( talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it to WP:FAC. I'm pretty sure that all major details relevant to the article are covered, but I'd like to get it checked over for anything that may be missing before nominating it, or any gaps that may disqualify it. Copyediting-related suggestions aren't necessary; I'll take it to WP:GOCE before nominating it.
Thanks, JML1148 ( talk | contribs) 01:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Not really experienced with WP:FAC but I do want do a bit of a review since this falls under the "related to cybersecurity" category.
noting the lack of a secure mail/messaging contact or bug bountiesWas there no contact information at all? or no security specific email address/contact ? This statement is a bit ambigious :)
believed to be legitimate by some cybersecurity experts,- I think this is implied, it might instead be usefull to point out that some cybersecurity experts thought this might be a hoax, if there was a significant minority/majority of them
some cybersecurity expertsbtw, who were they? can we name names?
The government could not assist with the clean-up following the breach, or compel Optus to give government services information.why, what stopped them ?
including a new cyber office- Can you explain what "cyber office" is and what it's duties were ?
a second number to driver's licenses were fast-tracked- How does this relate to cybersecurity/making drivers licenses more secure, maybe that could be explained?
This were the nitpicks I found on a initial read through. Sohom ( talk) 14:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
This article looks very familiar, especially the Macquaire Park image, but I can't place where I was involved with it earlier. So my apologies if any of this is stuff I've said before. This isn't a full review, just a few things that stood out to me on a quick read.
@ JML1148: This has been open since October, and it has been a month since the last comment. Is this ready to be closed, or are you seeking more comments? Z1720 ( talk) 19:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)