User talk:Driquet

Computer security compromised by hardware failure
Hiyas there Driquet!

First off, very nice work on the Computer security compromised by hardware failure page. Unfortunately i could only glance over it so far, But it looks very promising, and i guess i will definately enjoy reading it entirely this evening. Besides this i moved the draft page you created at User talk:Driquet/Computer security compromised by hardware failure to the mainspace to preserve the edit history, which is actually required for copyright reasons (See WP:HISTMERGE for some details). Besides this, did you consider nominating your article for a WP:DYK? I haven't fully checked it, but it may very well be eligible for one. Nothing like seeing a lot of hard work showcased on the front page where everyone can see it, after all. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 07:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Computer security compromised by hardware failure
Hey Excirial !

This section is about the article : Computer_security_compromised_by_hardware_failure. I'm a new user of Wikipedia, so if I'm doing something wrong, just tell me and I'll try to make it right. First, thank you for your feedback ! It was done for some college work (research oriented). I would be pleased to see it nominated for WP:DYK if it's eligible.

Some bot went on the article and flag it as a personal reflection or essay, but I don't understand why. Could you please explain what's wrong in the article ?

Thanks again ! --Driquet (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me a little bit longer to get to this a little longer then i initially expected - life was a bit busier then i expected it to be. But on to the article!


 * The article seems to be tagged with four different tags - "Long", "Essay-like", "Uncategorized" and "orphan", so let me get over these in details.


 * Long - This one is a bit straight forward to explain. The tag itself means that the article is rather long, and could therefor best be split into multiple (sub)article's for readabilities sake. For example, an article about World War 2 would be incredibly bulky if every single battle was described in detail (Not to mention it would be confusing to read) I would note that i am not entirely in agreement with this tag - judged by its size along, it seems to fit nicely into the recommended article lenghts, so i presume that the tagger noted that the article covers quite a few different sub-subjects of hardware security. Even so, i would leave it in one piece for now, since chopping it up would be rather complex.
 * Uncategorized - This means that no categories are added to the article, which are used to index article's by subject (So one can easily find related subjects). I took care of that one for you by adding some categories to it.
 * Orphan - This tag means that very few article's link to this article, which means it may be difficult to find. Since a lot of the views for a page come from internal links (Page to page links) a page that is unlinked can only be found by search or categories. Adding a link to this article in related other article's (This can be done in the See Also sections, or in the main content) solves this problem.
 * Essay-like - This is probably the hardest one to explain, and the one that is the most difficult to fix. The tag itself means that the article is written in a style that resembles an essay, rather then as an encyclopedic article. In general this means that an article contains a certain amount of personal opinion rather then entirely objective writing. Another thing that is somewhat prevent, is that the article is somewhat argumentative as opposed to being purely descriptive.


 * Now i know i am being quite vague here, and to be honest, it is rather difficult to explain the issue since it is a rather subtle difference. In all due honesty it isn't that bad in the article, and seeing it is a new article i am already impressed with its content - it certainly looks a LOT better then the absolute majority of the new article's. For example, have a look at this early edition of computer security. I presume you can see the difference in quality.


 * As for the DYK, anyone can nominate one, so you can nominate your own article's as well. There are just a few criteria to a DYK:
 * The article must be in the article space less then 5 days, OR its prose section must have grown in size by 5x during the same time period (You pass this one).
 * It must be at least 1.500 characters in prose (You EASILY pass this one)
 * The article must have a cite hook that meets the hook criteria. This hook is a short and interesting sentence that will be placed on the main page. The hook itself must be reasonable in size, the fact MUST be in the article and it MUST be sourced with a reliable source. Have a look at the "Did you know..." section on the main page for examples of current approved hooks. (No hook yet, so no pass or fail)
 * The article must meet verifiability, notability and other basic criteria. I'd argue you pass this one well enough, since larger size article's are more complex to structure correctly. The editors at DYK are often helpful and may give a hand or two cleaning and improving an article to make it ready. (For example, they often spot my typo's and creative usage of grammar).


 * I hope this helps! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)