Talk:Yahoo data breaches/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. Sohom (talk) 17:22, 31 March 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: Joereddington (talk · contribs) 05:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another security article in GA finally! I'll take this on tmrw, feel free to ping liberally in case I forget. Sohom (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. I just gave bit a bit of a check over and sorted out a bunch of typos that snuck in :) Joe (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Giving this an initial read, this is unfortunately going to have to be a quick fail since as it currently stands the article is a pretty long way from meeting the official good article guidelines. Particularly,

There are multiple issues with the prose of the article and a through copyedit before the article can be considered for a GA. (WP:GACR, 1a, 1b)
- Firstly, the article is formatted to have a lot of one or two sentence paragraphs. This is generally discouraged by the style guidelines (see WP:PROSELINE) and should be avoided
- Citations present in the lede should be removed unless extraordinary claims are made that are not already cited in the body of the article. (see WP:LEDECITE)
- The lede must also summarize and provide a clear overview of the subject matter, the current lede makes not mention of the 2016-2017 period and the motivations behind the crime
- There are even a few places where the sentences are even missing punctuations and/or are spaced weirdly or are weirdly phrased.
- Sentences like Yahoo! officially reported the 2014 breach to the public on September 22, 2016 (during the last few weeks of Presidential election campaigning, which some commenters described as "a good day to bury the news,") should be avoided. While I understand that the article is by it's very nature somewhat negative towards Yahoo, we should represent the facts in a straightforward encyclopedic manner and not try to make unnecessary connections that make a particular person/entity look bad. (see WP:YESPOV)
- In general, phrases like "some experts", "some commenters" etc are to be avoided. These are considered weasel words, if you need to quote somebody, quote them directly and mention who the publisher is.
- It is often useful to provide some context about specific attackers, for example, for this line As part of this process, the hackers enlisted Karim Baratov to break into accounts on other platforms. I'm left confused as to who Karim Baratov is and why they were enlisted.
- Lastly, I don't think you need to always end Yahoo! with a exclamation mark every time. Just Yahoo should be fine.
The article is also missing citations on a few sentences, for a GA, all text needs to be cited. (WP:GACR, 2b)

I think most of these issues can be solved by rewriting the article with some help from WP:GOCE. The sourcing behind the article is strong, and I definitely think a GA is within reason. I hope to see this article back at GA once the issues mentioned are fixed. Sohom (talk) 17:22, 31 March 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.