Wikipedia:Peer review/2012 LinkedIn hack/archive1

2012 LinkedIn hack
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want it to reach a GA status. It's copyedited, it's a DYK, and now I want it to reach a GA.

Thanks, Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 07:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Prose:


 * "change their passwords since the incident" --> "after the incident"


 * "Vicente Silveira" --> redlink this. Also, his official title is simply "director"?


 * "confirmed, on behalf of the company, that" --> "confirmed that" suffices. Also tell us when exactly he confirmed it. Two days later? A day later?


 * "would find their passwords are" --> "would find their passwords were"


 * "were first decrypted" --> "were decrypted"


 * " online, in plain text": No comma.


 * "security firm Sophos, warned": No comma.


 * "passwords could well be" --> "passwords could be"

"✅
 * "June 6, 2012" --> "June 6"
 * "LinkedIn said that it would email all its members": If this was a statement, we should say "LinkedIn said in a statement that" or something of that nature.


 * "all its members detailing security instructions, and separate emails to explain how to reset their passwords" --> "all its members with security instructions and instructions on how to reset their passwords"


 * The "Reaction" section is a quotefarm. I recommend finding a source that summarizes the reaction, and then in your own words say how people responded to it, citing this source.


 * "Immediately after the data breach, LinkedIn apologized for what happened" --> "LinkedIn apologized immediately after the data breach"

L✅
 * "LinkedIn requested" --> "LinkedIn asked"
 * "users whose passwords are compromised will be unable" --> "users whose passwords were compromised would be unable"


 * "LinkedIn account": Pluralize.


 * "old password": Pluralize.


 * "Reuters reported internet-security experts commenting that" --> "Internet security experts said"


 * "mobile calendar, without the user": No comma. And "user's"


 * "LinkedIn responded, claiming" --> "LinkedIn claimed"

Other thoughts:


 * The article would not pass a GA review in its current state for one reason: its layout doesn't comply with the MoS. The lead should be a concise summary of the body of the article. As it stands, it's an introduction to the article with a lot of information that's not repeated within the body. There shouldn't be any significant information in the lead that doesn't appear (cited) within the body. I would thus recommend creating new sections in the body of the article that flesh out the attack and the initial investigation before moving on to the sections you already have about the reaction, the response and the controversy. I would also recommend making the reaction section a synopsis of responses rather than a bunch of quotes strung together. I hope this helps.--Batard0 (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)