User:Fsharbi/Proactive cyber defence/AbleArcher99 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Fsharbi


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * NA


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Proactive cyber defence

Evaluate the drafted changes
The opening sentence is strong and gives a definition right away. The next sentence uses the word "thermocline." It makes for a harder to read article. I had to look it up, and while I can figure out the meaning, the definition related to an interface of water layers. This article doesn't appear to be about that at all. This also means this sentence could be plagiarized beyond not being cited. It sounds like an advertisement.

The article needs to be grammar and spell checked for errors.

The writing is too technical for a general article.

The Intro section attempts to be far too comprehensive.

The entire cyber defense section (spelled in American English vs. British English for the article title) makes for a much better introductory section.

The remainder of the article reads awkwardly. The Origins section with background on "cyber" seems dated and unnecessary beyond the DoD concepts.

The idea that the current status of proactive cyber defense is mostly based in the 1990s seems out of date, even if it has information that relates to the mid 2000s.

There is a lot of jargon and unexplained acronyms and initialisms.

Proactive pre-emptive operations as a sub heading to Vulnerabilities equities seems out of place.

There is a good See also section.

There is a minimal reference section, and much is listed in a Sources section that is non-standard for Wikipedia. Much of the article appears to be not cited properly.The references listed and tested worked.

The article appears very disjointed.