User:Saharae/NOBUS/E.roberts.scruggs Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Saharae


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saharae/NOBUS?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOBUS

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.)

Hi Sahara! You're article looks great so far and I can tell you've put a lot of thought and work into it. Great job! Below are my recommendations for updates to your sandbox draft of the NOBUS Wikipedia article:

Lead: I'm not sure if I fully understood the importance and complexities of NOBUS from the lead alone. I think you can rewrite the second sentence to be more clear by removing the first phrase: "The NSA will use NOBUS to justify leaving security vulnerabilities open so it can exploit them against current or future targets." You can add in the conflict about collecting vs. protecting info in a new sentence. The third sentence could use a citation. Finally, the last sentence of the lead shows the position of the critics without really explaining why. Take it or leave it, but you could rephrase the sentence as: "Critics argue that leaving security vulnerabilities open for "only" the NSA to exploit can be dangerous, as other countries continue to develop more advanced SIGINT technology."

Content: Based on your article overall, I really was able to understand what NOBUS is, the history behind it, and the criticism of it today. You assume the reader knows that there is a conflict between protecting data and intercepting data, but I don't think we can assume everyone knows this is true. I would be more explicit about this conflict in your sentence in the lead or in your first sentence in the History section.

Note: Make sure every sentence in your sections are cited, if possible.

I'd rephrase the second sentence of your first paragraph in the criticism paragraph - you say capabilities three times! I recommend reading sentences allowed to yourself to make sure they sound natural.

What are Zero-Day exploits? It's not clear right away that it is a vulnerability.

Finally, as discussed in class, make sure that your article does not implicitly take the view of someone living in the US who wants to be protected. Since Wikipedia is global, your article will be read by people who live elsewhere and might not have the same point of view, and Wikipedia articles shouldn't have a point of view anyway!