Wikipedia:Featured article review/Phishing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 removed by Gimmetrow 03:01, 23 April 2009 [1].
- Previous FAR: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Phishing/archive1. Notified: WP:COMP and ZeWrestler (talk · contribs)
Review commentary
[edit]Several portions of this article, quite frankly look in an absolute mess, this section should be reworked completely: a) it lacks ref; and b) Wikipedia is not a guide for things. Other sections contain no references and some of it appears to be a point of view. D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced by the fair-use rationale for File:Paypal Phishing.png since there is a free-use example of a phishing e-mail (File:PhishingTrustedBank.png). DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are six dead links (see [2]). DrKiernan (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, original research and synthesis. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What happened to the article? This version looks fine. Artichoker[talk] 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist citations needed; short sections should be merged or expanded; "See also" should be trimmed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's been neglected by editors, and left to the devices of individuals who don't understand or follow the policy of not writing unreferenced nonsense. Just delisting it now is the wrong approach - there are just a couple of problem areas. Remove the unreferenced sections on social engineering and identifying legitimate websites (I tried, Cluebot reverted my edits), or rewrite those sections and reference them. Simples. --82.33.50.145 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.