Wikipedia:Featured article review/Caesar cipher/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 17:40, 19 July 2008 [1].

Caesar cipher

Review commentary

This remains a well written, stable and (likely) accurate article, however it lacks a good lead, is too short and has a critical lack of citations, both inline and not.

The nominating user Matt Crypto, WP version 0.5 and Wikiproject Cryptography have each been notified of this discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the citations are not up to modern standards, but I would quibble with your assertion that it's too short. According to the FA criteria, a featured article merely needs to be comprehensive, that is, "it neglects no major facts or details". You might know of some gaps, but the topic of the Caesar cipher is not a large one, and I would argue that it is covered comprehensively here. Also, what problems do you see with the lead section -- it appears to be roughly the right size for an article of this length, if that's what you meant, as per the guidelines of Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. — Matt Crypto 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'll withdraw the remark about length and the lead. It needs to have its references flushed out and it should be fine. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five more inline citations, I can find a few more if you give me a few days. The external links section could do with cleanup - we only need one online implementation, not eleven. Hut 8.5 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now has 14 inline citations. Hut 8.5 20:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Hut. Do you feel that it is fully referenced (i.e., that each ref covers everything behind it until the preceeding ref)? And no, there is no length criterion; the question is whether it is comprehensive, regardless of length. Is Cumulus still around? Perhaps we can close this without FARC. Marskell (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the paragraph at the end concerning multiple decryptions, yes. Hut 8.5 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

How do we know: "..other substitution ciphers are known to have been used earlier", if Caesar's was the first recorded?
Placing "used earlier" alongside Augustus could mislead a naive reader into thinking Augustus used the cipher before Caesar.
Is "it is likely to have been reasonably secure, etc." all from Singh?
Please expand on the Mezuzah use. I wanted to know why it's used there and when the practice started.
In the paragraph summarising use of the Vigenère cipher I would add that "Complete Victory" was used by the Confederacy, to place it in an historical context (and mention anyone else who used it).
Are there any more historical uses of the cipher which could be used to illustrate the article? DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot to watchlist this page.

Caesar's is the first recorded use of a substitution cipher which is a simple shift of the alphabet. Other types of substitution cipher were used earlier (there are examples from Ancient Greece, the Old Testament, the Kama Sutra and even some Ancient Egyptian tombs).
Changed.
No, only "Assuming that an attacker could read the message" etc was. I've added another reference for the first part.
I've added a mention of the Confederacy, though a list of everyone who has used the Vigenère cipher would be very long for a brief summary - better just to link to the article.
I've expanded it a little.
I don't know of any more examples. After the Dark Ages anyone who did use the cipher would have to be completely ignorant of cryptography as it's so insecure. Hut 8.5 16:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns is referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My comments are addressed [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It remains a tidy little article. Great work from Hut. Marskell (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.