User talk:J Rodriguez MIT/sandbox

Peer Review
Comments: For the introduction, it would be nice to include examples of standalone applications. Or a definition for a standalone application/a link to the wikipedia page (if there is one) that goes over what a standalone application is. I only mention this because I'm pretty bad with technology and I'm not quite sure what you mean by a standalone application or what can be considered a standalone application. *maybe consider standalone software? look more into this

In clickjacking Categories, for cookiejacking, maybe consider linking the word cookies to another article on wiki that talks about cookies if there is one

As I was reading through, the first few sentences underneath cursorjacking doesn't make sense. Mostly the Mario Heiderich part doesn't fit in grammatically. You might want to consider polishing this sentence so that it is more clear what is trying to be communicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinytina16 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to take out commentary that was meant for yourself once you actually upload the article. For example, taking out the (Note: Separate into Smaller Categories)

Reminder: request an article move

In class questions: 1. What does the article (or section) do well? The organization of the article is very well. Listing the types of clickjacking and then creating smaller sections to go into more detail about the types is nice. The brief description included when listing the types gives a teaser and if the reader is interested in learning more based off the teaser they just read, they can go to the more detailed section. The split of prevention into client-side and server-side is also nice 2. What changes/additions would you suggest overall? The tasks that are currently listed in the Sandbox are good changes/additions that I agree with 3. What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? The most important thing would be to have clear explanations. The current explanations underneath the description section are still kind of vague and not as descriptive. I vaguely understand the idea of how clickjacking works, but I'm still uncomfortable with the topic (in the sense that there isn't enough detail to fully understand how it works). However, what I've seen so far with the short descriptions of the clickjacking categories are promising. When going into further detail about all the types of clickjacking, it would be important to continue giving clear explanations. 4. Any insights gained from your partner's work that might inform your own? It would be nice if I added a contents box and a "See Also" section to my article. Citations are also good for every sentence or two. Even if I go into more details about a list later on, it can still be nice to just have a repetition of just the list at the beginning. (like with this article's clickjacking categories bullet list, followed by paragraphs that go further into the things mentioned in the list. Tinytina16 (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)