User:Dephiant08/Social engineering (security)/Bdmparker Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Dephiant08)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Social engineering (security)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social engineering (security)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Evaluate an article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)

Dephiant08/Social engineering

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)    No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Could reduce some of the entries under “Pop Culture”

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No,   No

Tone and Balance

Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, for example the section under “1st Source Information Specialists” provides a lot of factual information but does not tie back to a referenced source.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, various formats

Are the sources current? Yes, relatively. The dated material range from 1995-2019

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes,   Undetermined

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Check a few links. Do they work? All 6 links clicked worked

Organization and writing quality

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minor. In below, I would change it to: that require and improperly secured.

An example of social engineering is the use of the "forgot password" function on most websites which require login. An improperly-secured password-recovery system can be used to grant a malicious attacker full access to a user's account, while the original user will lose access to the account.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There is one graphic, I could take it or leave it. It does not enhance my understanding but might for a different audience

Are images well-captioned? Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It appears that work is being processed for the Annotated Bibliography regarding Pretexting sources and also work on the Pretexting sub-section. Those are not all inclusive of the talk page.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class/High Importance,   Yes, i.e. WikiProject Sociology

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? NA

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status? Published

What are the article's strengths? The wealth of information it provides

How can the article be improved? See the below “ Examples of Good Feedback”

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed

Examples of good feedback

-         Under “Information Security Culture”, should add a bullet point for “Post-Evaluation”.

-         Under “Techniques and Terms”, I would modify the below statement to remove the redundancy.

From:

Social engineering relies heavily on the six principles of influence established by Robert Cialdini. Cialdini's theory of influence is based on six key principles: reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking, scarcity.

To:

Social engineering relies heavily on Cialdini's theory of influence established by Robert Cialdini. There are six key principles to this theory which include reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking, and scarcity.

-         Why is “Vishing” listed twice (under “Four Social Engineering Vectors” and “Other Concepts”?

-         Countermeasure should be a main heading similar to “Other Concepts”

-         Under the “Law” heading, I would move the below statement under “Pretexting of Telephone Records”. Or Change the heading from “Law” to maybe something like “Pretexting Law” since most of the laws discussed appear to be about pretexting.

-In common law, pretexting is an invasion of privacy tort of appropriation.