Talk:NIST Special Publication 800-53

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AbleArcher99. Peer reviewers: T0b0rx0r.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarify Source
These sources are nearly useless without further information identifying the document referenced:
 * Ross, et al., p. 4
 * Ross, et al., p. 2
 * Ross, et. al, p. 8

Anyone have the original document and could expand the citation?

17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabpot8 (talk • contribs)

Adding Sources and content
I am planning to make updates about Revision 5. This will include the December 2020 update to Rev 5 and the changes to the nature of the document between rev 4 and rev 5.

Peer review comments
Hi, I'm an online ambassador for the USPP project and I was hoping to leave some general comments about sources, style and content.

Style/content

 * Generally we don't include external links "inline" in the article. The first sentence in the article links directly to the standard itself which while sometimes helpful can be confusing for readers.
 * The lead of the article should summarize the topic. A sentence and a half in the lede is devoted to explaining what NIST is.  While I think an explanation of a role of NIST is appropriate for an article (as not too many people understand their role), it should not dominate the lead section.  Think of the lead as an executive summary or abstract.  If someone lands on this article after a web search, what things do you want them to know about the subject within seconds?
 * The subject is a tough one to summarize or convey to a general audience. Imagine a few questions you could ask in order to help in expanding this article.  What is interesting or salient about this publication?  What practices in the federal government did it influence?  Did its publication result in any major changes in agency behavior?  Were there any notable comments attracted in the public comment phase?  Etc.
 * The "drafts" section may be too long or detailed, but that is just my opinion.
 * I think the article should be re-written slightly to change the tone from an overview of the draft itself to a summary of the overall implications and reasons for the spec. This will come naturally with the addition of more sources apart from the spec itself.  Overall this is a very good start. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)