Previous Peer review: Archive1.

I have submitted this article once for a peer review, and I have decided that I will submit it again before trying to submit it to be a featured article canidate. This article has been cited 3 times by sources outside of wikipedia, and since phishing has become a big issue today, I would like to see this become a featured article. One thing that i mentioned in the talk page is that this article has too many links in the external link section. I think it needs to be cropped, but I am not sure what links should stay or go. Suggestions in that department would be useful as well.-- ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

Neat article!

1. One sentence paragraphs -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Many other grammer errors - I tried to do an overhaul of the first early history paragraph as an example Looks good -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
3. There was no references header - fixed
4. The article needs to be a bit longer in general... one idea would maybe to go into the phsycology of it a bit I think its long enough now more or less... delving deeper into the phsycology would be good but at this point its long enough to satisfy a good number of people -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
5. Early History should probably just be History fixed -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 11:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
6. Phishing headers should be named more appropriately, such as "EBay phishing example" or something done -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
7. Split up the first paragraph under early phishing on AOL - its LOOONG, also I don't even think you need a header there, but that's a personal preference More or less dealt with, I believe -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply
8. Another idea would be to take screen shots of the fake sites and compare them to the real ones

Anyway, keep it up, its pretty good -- RN 23:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Good suggestions. I'm at a LAN party right now. I'll try to start implementing them come monday. If anyone feels like implamenting RN's suggestions, feel free to go ahead. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 01:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) reply

• Ok, i've worked on a few suggestions that you have suggested. I'm going to work on your fake website idea a little later today. In your pychology suggestion, you think mentioning social engineering would be a wise idea? -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Mentioning social engineering would be a great idea although you're already doing that a bit - in fact its pretty good as is (although you could say something like after years of getting the same email someone may not notice the difference between the mails or something, or after years of not visiting a site like paypal may have thought their account was hacked into while they were away or something etc. -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• To expand the article i added a damage caused by phishing section. The seciton needs to be filled in though. I'll work on that part when i get home tonight. I still believe that the article has a few too many links. Can someone take a look at whats there and prune some of the unneeded ones. I've already gone ahead and pruned a couple myself. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Took a quick look today - it's really coming along! You're about 60% of the way to a FA... I'll copyedit et al later this week when I have some free time. Looks great! -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• The caption in the main picture is a bit nondescriptive. See Wikipedia:Captions for writing a good descriptive caption - I would describe how the example image is specifically trying to get people to be phished, or something. Scott Ritchie 20:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I fixed up the caption per the article you provided. Is this caption better? Any other suggestions? -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Here, I redid it using your start as a base. I think it works well now. Scott Ritchie 19:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Looks good -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 20:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• The article is looking good. I've taken the liberty of pruning the links, getting rid of all the software links since they are all on the antiphishing software article, and including an in text link to that article. I got rid of the separate list of examples too since the article already does a good job of showing examples. I added a section on industry response. The damage section is a good idea and the Antiphishing Working Group has data on attempt numbers and so on that could be made into graphs. In general I think the text could be bulked up a bit, the paragraphs are quite short. All the html links in text should be converted to proper notes when the writing is finished. -- nixie 10:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Great Work nixie. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Created a chart for the section "Damage Caused by Phising." The section still needs to be filled in. But in the mean time, what do you guys thing of it?-- ZeWrestler ^Talk 00:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
    • Looks good. It might be a good idea to increase the size of the text of the data points and axes, so they can be read without having to go to the image page.-- nixie 03:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
      • I'll look into fixing that tonight when i get home from work. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Do you like it better now? -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• Notes: nixie brought up the comment of converting the referances to proper notes. I've started to do that here and there, can someone help out with the conversion. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC) reply
• I've expanded some of the sections in the article. Can someone proof read them and check that they are worded correctly? Also, some fairuse rationale should be added to the e-mail pictures.-- ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Added fair use rationale. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Someone has suggested that the antiphishing article gets merged into phishing, is there any prospect of doing that?-- nixie 04:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I merged the articles and put a redirect on the anti-phishing article. Source 9 in the article is not working correctly with the template. can someone fix it so the title of the article shows up on the page in normal view. Other than that, what else should be worked on for this page? -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC) reply

nixie left a few suggestions in my talk page for the phishing article. i'm posting them here for all to see.

1. More on identity theft, mabye in the damage section
   • I changed up the paragraph adding more about identity theft -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply
2. Whats the damage outside the US [1], I know it's also a problem in Australia but I haven't found anywhere that says how bad it is in Australia
   • Added this to the article. it could still use some work. Any help would be great -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply
3. Whats the legal situation outside the US UK, I think you can also be prosecuted in Canada
4. A second paragraph could be added to the lead to briefly discuss damage, legislation and anti-phishing.
   • I started a second lead paragraph. Could someone do some work to it. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC) reply

Other than that, the article is coming alone greatly. -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Great job - I finished copyediting and I think at this point it has a good chance to pass FAC - a couple issues with the links though -

1. Maybe trim out a couple of the lesser quality links
2. All of them need a description

Looks great -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• I've trimmed links and added descriptions. Anything else? -- ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply

• Nope - looks good! Go ahead and go for the FAC :) -- Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 14:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC) reply