Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

The WikiProject Computer Security/Assessment is the department of the WikiProject Computer Security that assesses computer security articles. This page lists its members and facilitates its workflow.

Members

[edit]

If you're interested in assessing articles for WikiProject Computer Security, add your name to the Department list below.

Assessment

[edit]
  • Editors can add an assessment request to the list below. Instructions are in the source.
  • The list is transcluded to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Open_requests, because the WikiProjects Computer Security and Computing are related.
  • Please also take the initiative to respond to another open request.
  • Please move list items from "Open" to "Serviced" when you attend to them. Instructions are in the source.
  • Deliver your assessment on the talk page of the assessed article.
  • Articles of class Stub, Start, C, and B can be promoted to a higher class.
  • Articles cannot be promoted to class A until they have been subjected to a peer review or a Good Article/Featured Article review.
  • Articles of any class except GA and FA can be demoted to a lower class.
  • Please increment the appropriate field of the assessment statistics table after servicing a list item.

Open requests

[edit]
  1. Gameover ZeuS — requested by Eithersummer (talk · contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2023
  2. Unix Security — requested by 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (strongly suspecting: Start-Class, since severely lacking citations)

Serviced requests

[edit]
  1. Factor Analysis of Information Risk — requested by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 - attended to by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 18:03, 14 November 2010 - Disposition: Stub class, Mid importance.
  2. IT_risk_management — requested by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - attended to by Pnm (talk · contribs) 21:22, December 22, 2010 - Disposition: Start class, High importance.[reply]
  3. Security service (telecommunication) — requested by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 December 2010 - attended to by Pnm (talk · contribs) 21:43, December 22, 2010‎ - Disposition: C class, High importance.
  4. IT risk — requested by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 - attended to by Shiftchange (talk · contribs) November 17, 2016‎ - Disposition: C class, Top importance.
  5. Cracking of wireless networks — requested by Maarten 1963 13:44, 5 May 2012 - attended to by Aunva6 (talk · contribs) 13:04, March 31, 2013 - Disposition: C class, Low importance.
  6. Hacking Team — requested by blackhat999 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 07 July 2015 - attended to by Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 02:19, October 5, 2016‎ - Disposition: B class, Mid importance.
  7. Lynis — requested by Mathias Hollstein (talk · contribs) 01:02, 20 March 2017 - attended to by Widefox (talk · contribs) 15:10, March 26, 2017‎ - Disposition: Start class, Mid importance.
  8. KRACK — requested by Melmann (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2017 - attended to by Widefox (talk · contribs) 15:36, October 16, 2017‎‎ - Disposition: Start class, Mid importance.
  9. KRACK — requested by Melmann (talk · contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2017 - attended to by Widefox (talk · contribs) 12:42, January 9, 2018‎ - Disposition: C class, Mid importance.
  10. Risk IT — requested by Pastore Italy (talk · contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - attended to by Widefox (talk · contribs) 17:39, February 2, 2018‎ - Disposition: Start class, Low importance.[reply]
  11. Hacking Team — requested by blackhat999 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 07 July 2015 - attended to by Robofish (talk · contribs) 09:37, May 30, 2020‎ - Disposition: B class, Low importance.
  12. South African hacker history - requested by 105.226.13.137 (talk · contribs) 03:25, September 10, 2020 - attended to by Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 15:34, 15 June 2021 - Disposition: List class, Low importance.
  13. PLA Unit 61486 — requested by Blank61 (talk · contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2020 - attended to by Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 16:08, 15 June 2021 - Disposition: C class, Mid importance
  14. Data sanitization - requested by Gaw39938 (talk · contribs) 21:04, 3 July 2021 - attended to by Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 July 2021 - Disposition: B class, Mid importance
  15. Packet Clearing House - requested by Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 21:50, 15 June 2021
  16. Quad9 - requested by Bwoodcock (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 June 2021

Rejected requests

[edit]
  1. HP 7935 - requested by mikebar (talk · contribs) 13:28, 28 April 2010 - Disposition: handled under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  2. Raspberry Pi — requested by Trevj (talk · contribs) 11:42, 1 March 2012 - Disposition: handled under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  3. Soft body dynamics — requested by Shadowjams (talk · contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2012 - Disposition: handled under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  4. Columbia (supercomputer) — requested by AradiaSilverWheel (talk · contribs) 14:20, 15 June 2012 - Disposition: handled under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  5. Pleiades (supercomputer) — requested by AradiaSilverWheel (talk · contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2012 - Disposition: handled under Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing

Assessment statistics

[edit]
Assessments by Year
Year Requests Delivered Rejected
2021 5 5 0
2020 2 1 ?
2019 ? ? ?
2018 ? 2 ?
2017 2 2 ?
2016 ? 1 ?
2015 ? ? ?
2014 ? ? ?
2013 ? 1 ?
2012 5 1 4
2011 ? ? ?
2010 6 3 1

Quality

[edit]

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Acid2
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of convicted computer criminals
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Digital forensics
Microsoft Security Essentials
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. ITIL security management
Computer security
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Antivirus software
Attack (computer)
Malware
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. Comparison of computer viruses

In the above table, examples are from:

  • computer security articles (best choice);
  • computing articles (second best choice);
  • other articles (third best choice).

Importance

[edit]

Label Articles
Top Fundamental concepts, standards, companies, important websites, or anything that forms the basis of all information
High Popular applications, architectures, or anything that covers a general area of knowledge
Mid Core components or anything that fills in more specific information of certain areas
Low Optional add-ons that are not fairly important, or anything that is an obscure piece of trivia

Statistics

[edit]
Computer Security articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 4 9 14 27
B 5 31 47 51 5 139
C 27 192 241 375 43 878
Start 11 133 296 827 247 1,514
Stub 17 74 431 199 721
List 8 9 21 4 42
Category 29 29
File 7 7
Redirect 14 16 43 135 208
NA 1 3 4
Other 2 2
Draft 49 49
Assessed 43 399 693 1,765 222 498 3,620
Total 43 399 693 1,765 222 498 3,620
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 15,884 Ω = 4.84
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_Security/Assessment&oldid=1218866594"