Talk:Fast flux/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I am planning on giving this article a GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * No obvious GA Quickfail issues. Shearonink (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this! If there are corrections that you want to be made, let me know; I will make the corresponding edits ASAP. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 22:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * For the most part, this is a Yes, but...see 3B. Putting this On Hold for the moment. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One last concern for the prose...I think the term mothership needs to be referenced and defined. The article refers to motherships or mothership nodes 9 times but the term is never defined or referenced. Shearonink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've explained it under Fast flux and it has two references. Mothership nodes are the backend command and control nodes. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 17:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake, nevermind - I don't know how I missed that. This parameter is a Yes of course. Shearonink (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Follows MOS. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Yes. And all according to WP:guidelines. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * There are various issues with the Bibliography. For instance, some of the sources/references have gone dead, including:
 * Measuring and Detecting Fast-Flux Service Networks article by Holz et al. from February 2008 with empirical measurement results on fast flux.
 * FluXOR project from Computer and Network Security Lab (LaSeR) @ Università degli Studi di Milano (down as 07/27/2012)
 * The Bibliography is a mix of cite journal, adjusted bare links with web archive overlays and bare links. For veriability purposes, and reading-ease of our audience I think it would be helpful for you to check over all the references, convert the bare link ones to cite journal/cite web/whatever and delete the ones that are completely dead or no longer viable. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: Removed a few, and used templated references as suggested. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 03:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a Harvard Cite error for the Bibliography entry that starts with "Holz (February 2008)", That reference is now unused and should be removed. In case you don't have this tool installed on your common.js page its documentation page is found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors & the code page is found at User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js . But you're an editor who completely understand fast flux...I'm sure you probably already have it installed but just in case you don't I thought you might like to know.
 * Once the Harvard cite error is cleared-up, this section will be a Yes. Shearonink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed that reference. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 17:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This parameter passes this GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * Some of the paragraphs or sections have very few references, specifically Domain-flux network & Security countermeasures. Some of the statements would seem to possibly need additional referencing. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add further references and make the corresponding edits in a few hours. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 03:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: I've copy edited and added inline references. Let me know if there is anything else. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 05:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this section now passes its GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Ran Earwig's copyvio tool - no problems. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * I am concerned with the level of technical language in this article. I am not sure that it is possible to - well, not "dumb it down" necessarily, but maybe try to think of explaining the subject to someone who doesn't know all that much about computers... I'll read it over again a couple of times, I'm putting this criteria On-Hold for now, please refer to WP:TECHNICAL & WP:ONEDOWN for a more thorough explanation of my concerns. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will make this change within tomorrow evening. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 03:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've copy-edited a few of the sections. If there's something specific you would like to be made, please let me know. Will make the corresponding changes. Unfortunately, I fear I can't simplify too much further since it's a very technically specialized topic anyway :-) but I'm open to your thought. WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 05:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree it's technical in nature and to go too far in getting elementary wouldn't be fair to the subject. Your changes are fine - I think this section now passes its GA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Sticks to the facts. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Quite stable, no edit wars or content disputes found. Shearonink (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * The single image is fine, especially since the nominator created it. Shearonink (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Relevant with suitable captions. Shearonink (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * The article is now On Hold with a few minor issues to clear up, I will give the article another deep-read within the next day or two. Unless I find some undiscovered issue I think it will probably be a GA... Shearonink (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Congrats - it's a WP:GA. Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much :-) Regards, WikiLinuz  🍁 ( talk ) 18:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)