Wikipedia:Peer review/Phishing/archive1

Phishing
This article has been used three times as a source for articles written about Phishing in general. I nominated the article to be a featured article candidate, but the article failed the nomination, on the grounds that it has featured article potential, but it needs a peer review. The response sub page from the featured article nomination is here. --ZeWrestler 13:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The lead is too long for an article of this length. Either shorten the lead or expand the article. The external links section could use some cleaning. I would suggest sorting links based on subject and put the most important ones at the top. (An anti-phising site is useful, but shouldn't come before all sites with information on phishing itself). Mgm|(talk) 15:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have shortened the lead for the article, and put a good portion of it in a history section. I have also organized the links as you suggested.  Thanks for the input.  What other suggestions/improvements can be made here?? --ZeWrestler 02:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The first reference says (February 3) but the article states "2005-03-03". Regardless of the use of American or European standards for dating that would make it March 3. I would mention when articles were published for example: "Published: March 3, 2005" or even better "Retreived: March 3, 2005." You never know if the page ever gets updated. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * what part of the article is this? --ZeWrestler 23:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, i see what you mean, and fixed up that section. What else do you see? --ZeWrestler 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this a good, timely article. It needs a little work though, before I think it could be a FAC:
 * The language style of Early History is too conversational &mdash; some examples:
 * "...AOL made tougher restrictions..." sounds odd to me. fixed
 * fixed--ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "...in around 1997..." gives you about a 3 year range! Can you be more precise?
 * fixed, but not 100% sure about the date, can someone look it up.
 * "...AOL got tough on that..." could be phrased more sharply.
 * Quotes around quotes, and quotes formatted more clearly.
 * Can someone else handel this one? --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "So then the phishing moved..." – I was taught not to begin sentences with "so", "because" or "also" although I forget the precise grammatical issue. Anyway, it sounds too chatty. Something as simple as "The phishing then moved..." will fix these kinds of things, of which the article has a few.
 * Fixed up the mistakes mentioned here. I believe i got them all --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The "first mention" ought surely to be the first thing mentioned &mdash; merge it into the first sentence or two.
 * I moved this to the opening paragraph --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally, replace "--" with &mdash;, or – as appropriate.
 * I think i made the changes you recommended to this part, double check me on this. --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).
 * The Additional attack methods is really only one paragraph on the section title. The rest of it is advice. The two should be seperated, remembering that WP:NOT a FAQ. There are many detailed documents on the prevalent attack vectors which could really beef this section up; the challenge would be to do in broadly lay-persons terms.
 * This article in general suggests that phishing is (or, given the tenses used, was) an activity confined to AOL. I form this impression because all the current attacks (bank website etc etc) are 'relegated' to an 'additional' section. In fact, of course, it is these 'additional' methods that make phishing a clear and present danger. Some better structuring and retitling might benefit this.
 * Don't put presently current examples like the IDN spoofing in, particularly when the example cited is specific to one (minority) browser. Especially considering that the problem is solved merely by upgrading to the current version! I have concerns that this part of the article will be in need of constant revision and would probably preclude FA status on that basis &mdash; by the time it were featured it would be out of date. There is a separate debate over whether Wikipedia should attempt to catalogue all phising threats, but this article probably isn't a good place to pile them up.
 * Is the Wiki allowed to single Ebay out for an example?
 * When i added this section to the article, i was not singling out e-bay, i just picked a common e-mail attempt that has attempted to phish me on several occasions. I was using it as an example, not singling them out. -- ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whew! That might seem like a lot, but much of it is minor and by no means intended to eat the article. Hope that helps -Splash 01:38, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I started making the corrections you suggested. If i wasn't so tired from work, i would attempt to do more.  If anyone else can help out and make some corrections to this as well, i'd be happy.  thank you for your suggestions splash.  I marked on them, which ones i fixed so far.  --ZeWrestler 04:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Due to my job increasing my work load, and me having to study for the GRE exams, would it be possible for someone to take over this peer review of this article? -ZeWrestler 28 June 2005 12:03 (UTC)