User:Aljones2015/Standard of Good Practice for Information Security/ForrestCyber Peer Review

I'll specifically break this out by the lead section and the artcile body section.

Lead

Your lead section is well thought out, but some general observations I've had with it:


 * I had trouble finding the exact information for Smith & Johnson as the reference, but I'd encourage to paraphrase a bit more. Right now, it reads as more of a way to tell a story as opposed to describe.
 * For example, think about a way to rephrase it that Smith & Johnson are making this claim, such as "As Smith and Johnson describe, the SoGP is renowned for...".
 * Similarly, this can be seen with Doe & Adams in which it reads as if the SoGP is now required for organizations, as opposed to just a claim being made by Doe & Adams.

Again, great work so far, I think the primary area would be putting this in as much of a neutral point of view as possible.

Article Body

Similar to the sentiment above to try to turn this into as much of neutral langauge as possible. Food for thought, just reading through the flow of the article as is, how would this be placed? Under the organization section, above it? As a subsection? I think overall its good and helps really detail the purpose of SoGP, but it seemingly doesn't tie in for its current revisions.

Again great job with this, and I think these would all be welcome improvements!