Talk:NIST Special Publication 800-53

Libraries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AbleArcher99. Peer reviewers: T0b0rx0r.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify Source

These sources are nearly useless without further information identifying the document referenced:

Ross, et al., p. 4
Ross, et al., p. 2
Ross, et. al, p. 8

Anyone have the original document and could expand the citation?

17:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crabpot8 (talk • contribs)

Adding Sources and content

I am planning to make updates about Revision 5. This will include the December 2020 update to Rev 5 and the changes to the nature of the document between rev 4 and rev 5.

Peer review comments

Hi, I'm an online ambassador for the USPP project and I was hoping to leave some general comments about sources, style and content.

Sources

I'm not a subject matter expert, so my advice here comes from thinking about subsidiary guidelines (specific implementations created to meet 800-53) or overarching guidance (FIPS) and some googling. A narrow search on google scholar gives a few sources, though many are from NIST referring to iterations of the draft.
This paper seems to extend the IPSEC auditing provisions of the spec.
there are also a number of papers on applying the general principles and frameworks to health care information systems and cloud computing, both interesting possible subjects.

Style/content

Generally we don't include external links "inline" in the article. The first sentence in the article links directly to the standard itself which while sometimes helpful can be confusing for readers.
The lead of the article should summarize the topic. A sentence and a half in the lede is devoted to explaining what NIST is. While I think an explanation of a role of NIST is appropriate for an article (as not too many people understand their role), it should not dominate the lead section. Think of the lead as an executive summary or abstract. If someone lands on this article after a web search, what things do you want them to know about the subject within seconds?
The subject is a tough one to summarize or convey to a general audience. Imagine a few questions you could ask in order to help in expanding this article. What is interesting or salient about this publication? What practices in the federal government did it influence? Did its publication result in any major changes in agency behavior? Were there any notable comments attracted in the public comment phase? Etc.
The "drafts" section may be too long or detailed, but that is just my opinion.
I think the article should be re-written slightly to change the tone from an overview of the draft itself to a summary of the overall implications and reasons for the spec. This will come naturally with the addition of more sources apart from the spec itself. Overall this is a very good start. Protonk (talk) 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at James Madison University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]