Wikipedia:Peer review/Digital forensics/archive2

Digital forensics

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I wrote this article almost entirely from scratch in Aug/Sept last year. It was Peer Reviewed in September and promoted to GA status in November 2010. Since then I have extensively expanded and massaged the content in a push towards getting it read for FA review. Although I still have items on the to do list it would be nice to get yet another review of the content and insights into how to improve readability, coverage and so on.

Thanks, Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A few comments by North8000 - NOT A REAL REVIEW

These thoughts came to mind after a first read:

• "Haphazard" in the lead sounds negative / judgmental. Use a different word or phrase?
• The overview/uses of material is focused on law enforcement. Skips one big certain field which is government intelligence. (of course, much harder to source, but at least mention it) Are hacking and corporate espionage also fields?
• "Where's the beef?" There's no section in there that describes the actual process. Even the linked article "digital forensic process" barely did that. Maybe give a few nuts and bolts examples. Undeleting hard drive material, accessing normally inaccessable data on a portable device.

Hope these help a bit. Feel free to ignore. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Some useful ideas there, particularly "Where's the beef". digital forensic process is a work in progress but you are right, there should be some of that content in the article. Government intelligence... I could make mention of intelligence gathering, that is pretty common even in LE - government level *shrug* who knows what they get up to :) Are hacking and corporate espionage also fields; no. They are the sort of crimes DF would be used to investigate, but they aren't fields. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)