Wikipedia:Featured article review/Phishing/archive1

Phishing[edit]

Article is still a featured article

Review commentary[edit]

I helped bring this article up to FA status last year. Since then, the article has taken on some crud and unsourced statements. The article still appears to be in decent shape, henceforth I am nominating it for a minor review, just to polish out the flaws that have developed since the granting of the FA status. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Has taken on some crud"... Would a revert be in order? Marskell 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially, wasn't sure how to go about it though. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well a wholescale revert isn't always best. Open the old one in a new window and look at them comparatively to start? Marskell 13:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: I guess it's in the nature of the topic, but Jesus this gets nailed by anons. Looking at it, I wonder if it should be delisted on stability grounds... Marskell 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of those "anons". Could you look at the content of the article and suggest what it is that needs improving? The nature of the editors isn't important. Bizarre edits get reverted, and I've been contributing a lot of good content, with references. It was me that added the "cite" tags, and me that has just gone through and found cites for those. Please, be specific in what the "crud" is, and quite how much this "nailing" is causing problems. Which parts of the article need attention? As far as I can see there are very few unreferenced statements now, and the quality of the article is improved from that a year ago. If you don't agree, compare the two and list where it has got worse, and then make changes to improve it. Surely? Best of luck. --82.33.54.90 08:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that probably did appear to be a back-handed comment about anon editing. It's just harder for a third-party to judge it with a lot of small anon edits. Marskell 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is working on the substandard prose? Here are random examples.
- "More recent phishing attempts have started to target the customers"—Since they're recent, why not "have targeted"?
- "system to quickly deactivate any account involved in phishing"—do you mean "promptly"?
- "caused most phishers to leave the service, and many phishers — often young teens in their heyday — grew out of the habit." The last bit is ambiguous; the parenthetical phrase is potentially POV. Tony 01:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - I've made some of your suggested changes. If you can see other phrasing that jars please help out. I think the AOL section needs more work, particularly for some of the details. That last part about growing out of phishing is out of the cited aolcracks article, at the end, but it might do with reworking. --82.33.54.90 22:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found from where a lot of the original content came that was in this (featured) article a year ago: [1]. Some of the text that was first in here almost completely duplicated examples in that text. I don't want to repeat that, but this paper could be heavily cited for the remaining technical parts of this article that are missing cites. It could also serve as a template for improving the article, as long as the previous error of literally using text is not made again. --82.33.54.90 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

looking this over, the citations could be converted to the new system as well. the current footnotes look like they don't point to the sources they are supposed to point to anymore.--ZeWrestler ^Talk 12:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the new citation system would be good but I failed to fully understand it. Someone who is familiar with it could really help out by updating all of the links to the new system. If you mean the numbers don't match up, they do - I just checked. I also recently found cites with dead links and found new fresh links for them, so the situation isn't that bad. 82.33.54.90 17:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Esprit15d has converted refs for me in the past. The bot doesn't always work, but you can revert if it doesn't. You can try contacting him/her. Sandy 22:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do people feel this should go to FARC? Looking at it, I see an underweight LEAD and some short sections (the example section doesn't seem right, for instance). The citations are certainly there. ZE what do you think? Marskell 15:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see good references, which make me very happy, but lots of cleanup needed:

Has anyone looked at the images? I don't understand that area well, but it strikes me there may be some problems.
Please put the categories in alphabetical order.
Short lead. It's been in review, for a while, can't it be fixed?
Prose - getting through this sentence tired me out ~~(and it has a typo)~~: In an example PayPal phish (right), spelling mistakes in the email ("no choise but to temporaly suspend your account"), and the presence of an IP address in the link visible in the tooltip under the yellow box ("Click here to verify your account") are both clues that this is a phishing attempt.
Per MOS, put refs after the punctuation: a new one containing the legitimate URL[14]. should be URL.[14]

It does seem to need more work. Sandy 16:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, struck my objection to the intentional spelling mistake. Sheesh. Sandy 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Major concerns raised in the minor review were: inadequate lead, prose and images and expansion of AOL section. Joelito (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was made on moving the article from minor to major review categories, just before the two processes were merged. Tony 12:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science. Sandy 22:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Main featured article criteria concerns are prose (2a), lead (3a), citation format (2c), and images (4). Marskell 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few people who have pointed out flaws, but don't seem to have carried out changes to correct those. Obviously, there aren't any owners of this page, and no one else has a responsibility to make changes that are pointed out.

Improvements that have already been made include:

references for almost all uncited statements
improved prose in some places
better lead

Can you help keep the ball rolling? -82.33.54.90 13:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove~~Undecided. Precious little has been done since nomination. Anon. user 82.33: we'd love you to log in. Tony 04:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so hasty! A fair amount has been done, if you put June 22 instead of July 22 as the start date. My point stands - no one owns this page. A few people have come and criticised and not made changes; the article will simply not improve without people actively making changes. -82.33.54.90 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has indeed been some good work. Near doubling of refs; indeed, the refs per K is quite exceptional here (which it probably should be for a technical article). I'm a neutral for now, as I was above. I'll try and look at it closely before the time is up. Marskell 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article falls within the bounds of the criteria. Citations are there, covers its topic, writing is fine. It's short, but reading it the length feels right. I still think the example sections don't fit perfectly (perhaps just turn them to bold rather than the headlines and move them after "techniques") but this is not enough for a remove. Marskell 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My apoligies for not being more active during this process. I am in the process of leaving my home state and moving into graduate school. Things have been hectic. I believe the article still meets the criteria as Marskell has stated, but still needs to be polished. if it wasn't for this move, i'd be more active in helping out. Hopefully, with a little help from various contributors here, we can polish off the crud that has been added, without needing to remove it from FA status. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note left with ZeWrestler about her/his requesting an extension for this "polishing". Tony

S/he has just replied (on my talk page, rather than here, unfortunately) that an extension would be good. Say a week? Tony 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, leave it open. But I'm actually not sure what "crud" there is that needs serious work. I'm not especially familiar with the topic, but the article doesn't seem to wander away on tangents or present info that's off topic. I'm comfortable with it. Marskell 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am a male. Second, I managed to free up a little bit of time to work on it and I completly converted the citation format for the article. The article uses the <ref></ref> system. This in turn fixed the out of order reference problem the article had prior to the correction. I hope this helps. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the references. Simpler than I realised. I still don't know what "out of order references problem" you were talking about though! I'll look at naming the reference to the OED that appears twice when I get time. -82.33.54.90 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the references where out of numerical order in the article. So, for example, the third footnote was linked to the 4th reference in the list. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]