User talk:Emanp1234/sandbox

The Microsoft Digital Crimes Unit (DCU) is a Microsoft sponsored team of international legal and internet security experts employing the latest tools and

Morgan's feedback
Try to put the take downs of the botnets into chronological order because you reference the Zeus bot in the Citadel section. Daileymn (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback- Cassie, Sarah, Jacob
Organization is good and easy to follow. Has a lot of external references, but has not used them in his editing yet. Written objectively, not biased. Russece (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback from Jason, Justin and Mike
Cited very well. It is neutral in tone and detailed. Well organized. On subsection 1.2.1, there is no space in "takedown" while 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 have spaces.

JasonHunt1 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Rob and Iris Peer Review
It is well organized as well as neutral. There are no sides that show favoritism. The lead section makes sense but we would say to add a couple more references to it. There are many references that work well with the wikipedia page itself. The tone is formal but still understandable. Dolphin7861 (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Kile's Feedback
Reread your section on the Citadel Botnet for grammatical errors and errors in sentence structure. Check your subheadings in the Botnet section to fix the title of the subheadings seeing as take down is written as takedown in one section.CheeseBurgerDude79 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Jordan's Peer Review
The article has good flow because the sections are in chronological order and transition straight into each one.It also has a neutral tone to it and is very informative. It gives plenty of information on great examples of what the DCU does allowing the reader to get a full understanding of it. The take down of the Citadel Botnet section has weird wording in the first and last sentences. Also, take down is spelled differently between the sections. J Gantz22 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Max, Nicholas, and Kyla's Peer Review
This is explained very well however he needs to work on adding more references, for example, the Trespass the Chattel section has only one references and one hyperlink. MSan123 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Feedback - Tim's group
Lead and organization are good and make the article interesting/flow well. Tone is neutral and factual, no bias is present. There are plenty of references for the topic, and the paragraphs are cited correctly. Pinyayta (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Brady's Peer Review
In your lead you are missing the word 'as' right towards the end in the last sentence. Besides that you are doing very well and I would consider it just about done. 21bop (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)