Wikipedia:Peer review/Digital forensics/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been doing a lot of cleanup work on the area of digital forensics and this is the first of the articles I feel is approaching relatively good quality.
I would like some laymans/peer input into the article. Particularly:
- Does the content make sense to someone new to the field?
- Does the layout seem logical?
Of course prose, referencing and factual stuff would be appreciated too. Basically - what does the article currently lack? :)
Thanks, Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 20:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Jappalang
Dablinks (toolbox on the right of this peer review page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix it.done, thanks
Checklinks say sciencedirect.com is down; the website says it is for maintenance.It's back up now but I will keep an eye on it
Lede
"Computer forensics, Network forensics, Database forensics and Mobile device forensics"Do these sub-branches need to have their first word capitalised?no, no particular reason for them to be, now made lower case, thanks
History
- Listing a few common computer crimes to give readers an idea would be better than asking them to go to another article to read details they may not wish to know; it also helps to establish a readily associable context right at the start.
- Great idea
- Why should we care about GL Palmer and M Reith's words on digital forensics (i.e. what are they qualifications to speak on this topic)?
- I was mostly attributing the opinion to sources, it's a widely accepted opinion though (just about every source makes the same points) so I could remove their names. As it is they are scholars in the field; do you think I need to list their qualifications/authority? Perhaps as a note?
- If they are scholars, prefix their qualifications before their names, e.g. Scholars of (topic)/Professors of Computers/Noted consultants for digital forensics GL Palmer and M Reith, or such. Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was mostly attributing the opinion to sources, it's a widely accepted opinion though (just about every source makes the same points) so I could remove their names. As it is they are scholars in the field; do you think I need to list their qualifications/authority? Perhaps as a note?
Investigative tools
- Possibly describe how the old methods are done (live analysis on media)? Seems quite skimpy and inaccessible to the common person otherwise.
Digital evidence
- "... authenticity of evidence."
- Any cases where authenticity has come into dispute? Illustrating one or two such cases could help beef this point up and make it clearer to the reader its weight in the matter.
- Good idea. Sources are problematic for this but I will dig around nexis/scholar for some info.
Branches
- Seems a bit bare bones here... I think giving a case study/example for each branch could help the reader readily identify which branch a digital crime would be investigated under.
- Good idea. I was avoiding too much detail because they each have their own main article.
Sources
- What makes the TectTarget site, a general IT media site, a reliable source for digital forensics?
- Fair point. I'll dig around for a better source.
Overall, I think the structure is logical and apt for the subject. The article seems to me skimpy at the moment (some terms could be explained or illustrated instead of expecting readers to go to another link to find out more) but also perhaps it is not yet fully developed. Jappalang (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the peer review! Your comments have given me the confidence to expand some of the sections I was cautious of doing so before :) I may drop you a note in a few weeks if that's ok to see what you think of any improvements. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, it should be left to the person who made the comments to strike the issues raised (in this case, it is okay with me since the dab and links are not subjective issues). Although I cannot promise anything, please drop me a note when you have revamped the article. I believe this subject is of potential and helpful (especially with the state of technology these days). Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry - I was just using it as a checklist so I knew which bits I had addressed. Thanks for all your comments :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Generally, it should be left to the person who made the comments to strike the issues raised (in this case, it is okay with me since the dab and links are not subjective issues). Although I cannot promise anything, please drop me a note when you have revamped the article. I believe this subject is of potential and helpful (especially with the state of technology these days). Jappalang (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)