Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy/GA2

GA Review

Passed. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 01:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"The reviewers interviewed 21 reviewers about the criteria they used to judge papers during the review process. Among these reviewers, 19 identified novelty—whether the paper advanced the research problem or the state of the art—as their primary criterion. Nine reviewers also emphasized the importance of technical soundness in the implementation, while seven mentioned the need for a self-contained and complete evaluation, ensuring all identified areas were thoroughly explored. Additionally, six reviewers highlighted the importance of clear and effective writing in their assessments." You use the term reviewers to refer to both those reviewing papers for the conference and the people conduction this study. This is kind of confusing. I would recommend changing it to "Ananta Soneji and others running the study interviewed 21 of the reviewers for the conference" or something along those lines to make it clear who you are referring to. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fixed, this was a typo, I meant "researchers". Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] "the major weaknesses of the peer review process used by the conferences." I'm assuming you just meant this conference here so I would change this to conference singular instead of conferences but I wanted to double check that is what you meant. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Fixed Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Great job at expanding the lede! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	"The conference has a single track and follows a double-blind review process to ensure fairness during peer review." (from the lede) I think it would be a good idea to define what single track and double blind means within the lede. Both of these terms are used throughout the article and the average reader may not know what they mean. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] "The conference has a low acceptance rate due to it having only a single track." (from lede) Again I would define what single track is either here or earlier in the lede. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] I do see that you defined single track later in the article which is very appreciated however I would recommend moving that explanation into the lede as a good portion of readers only ever read the lede. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] "EEE Symposium on Security and Privacy considers papers from a wide range of topics related to computer security and privacy. Every year, a list of topics of interest is published by the program chairs of the conference which changes based on the trends in the field." Is it possible that you could find the list of topics from one of their older meetings and incorporate that into the article? Something like "in past meetings they have discussed topics such as xyz". This would give the reader a better understanding of the goal of the meetings. I would just caution you to be careful with using overly technical terminology here and purposely select topics that most people would be more familiar with. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] DoneI've added a few topics from the 2023 conference. Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] You use the term "Linus kernel" quite a bit throughout the article. I do see that you gave a basic description of it in the lede which is good however I would suggest explaining it a bit more in the controversy section. ref 7 [1] goes a little more into depth about the Linux kernel and I feel like you could incorporate some of their explanation into the article. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Done Sohom (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall this article has significantly improved since my last review. It's clear that a lot of hard work was put into making this article. There are a couple of very minor issues mostly to do with making the article understandable to a broad audience. Once @Sohom Datta: addresses those issues I believe the article will pass. All of the content was backed up by sources. The lede is at an appropriate length. Everything is put into the writers own words. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply] Seeing as all the issues have been addressed I am going to pass this article! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.