Talk:Stuxnet/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: intelatitalk 04:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The three bolded sentences are the ones that are the ones that need attention. Overall nice, but could use a little work.
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
- Excellent in the ending sections of the article, although the "History" section could be expanded. Also, there is no need to reference the lead, unless the information isn't repeated in the prose. And the "Operation" Section could use a little copy editing. The language is a little difficult to read.
- The lead can be referenced, and usually is for anything controversial.Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excellent in the ending sections of the article, although the "History" section could be expanded. Also, there is no need to reference the lead, unless the information isn't repeated in the prose. And the "Operation" Section could use a little copy editing. The language is a little difficult to read.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Links are all still live and cited using "Cite Web". you need to solve the "[By whom?]" tag in the last paragraph of "Speculations about the target and origin"
- There are references that are not appropriately formatted, peacock terms and missing references. The section on operation needs fleshing out - e.g. there are many different infection vectors such as RPC. There have been multiple versions with different functionality. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Links are all still live and cited using "Cite Web". you need to solve the "[By whom?]" tag in the last paragraph of "Speculations about the target and origin"
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- Focuses just on the virus and the aftermath
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I've removed the suggestion that the attack would not have occurred if the systems were Linux. Some of the speculation is borderline - e.g. impact to the Indian space programme fails WP:RELY so I've removed it.Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Not sure if you can include pictures or illustrations in the article
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
What's the status of this review? There haven't been any updates in a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to have a GA article on my resume, I am now Semi-Retired. Feel free to work on it if you wish. :) Sephiroth storm (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I alas haven't had time to handle articles of my own these days. Given all the issues, I'm just going to fail this. If anyone wants to do the cleanup and re-nom it, they certainly can. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)