Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phishing/archive1
I nominated the article back in May: May 2005 nomination Since then, the article has received two extensive peer reviews. July-Aug 2005 peer review and the June 2005 peer review. Both reviews have been extremely helpful in improving this article. I believe the article is now ready to for becoming a featured article on wikipedia. It meets the criteria for becoming a featured article, and also has been cited as a source by three different media organizations. (See the article's talk page for more information on that.) Furthermore, phishing has become an important issue today as the number of phishing issues reported increases rapidly.
- Nominate and Support --ZeWrestler Talk 15:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Much better than last time. Interesting article too. --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Object. Two problems--first of all, the copyright status of the User Friendly strip isn't clear to me; all it says on the image description page is that it was "released to the internet", and that it's copyrighted by the strip's creator. Secondly, the section entitled "Attempts after AOL" is full of confusing technical jargon (sample sentence: "Secunia has issued a security advisory on the IDN spoofing issue[1], based on the IDN homograph attacks identified by Eric Johanson [2]. Users of web browsers that implement IDN are affected"). You should lead up to the technical stuff, rather than simply launching straight in after the easy-to-understand "early phishing on AOL" section. Meelar (talk) 15:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)- The picture is can be used on Wikipedia, because of the following message in the Userfriendly FAQ section. I have already updated the image description page. I am going to update the userfriendly tag, so this issue can be avoided in the future. As for your second object, I will begin working on it.--ZeWrestler Talk 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. I look forward to seeing your work--the rest of the article is very good. Not sure if the User-Friendly FAQ entry helps much, though--it appears to allow non-commercial use only, which violates the GFDL. Might want to either justify fair use or yank the strip (it doesn't seem essential to the article, esp. considering the large number of other excellent illustrations). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The user friendly copytag is not listed under GFDL. It is listed under Free licenses. GFDL does not apply to this image. Copyright for the image applys to this site, because the image is being used for educational purposes, as specified on the FAQ above. If the image becomes too much of an issue, i'll remove it from the article, but personally, I would preferr to keep it in. I believe it adds a nice touch to the article. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. I look forward to seeing your work--the rest of the article is very good. Not sure if the User-Friendly FAQ entry helps much, though--it appears to allow non-commercial use only, which violates the GFDL. Might want to either justify fair use or yank the strip (it doesn't seem essential to the article, esp. considering the large number of other excellent illustrations). Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 15:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I have made corrections to the section per your suggestion. Are the changes good enough, or is there something else that needs to be changed? --ZeWrestler Talk 17:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support--your changes address my concerns. The User Friendly image isn't compatible with Wikipedia, unfortunately. He says he's fine with re-use, "as long as no money changes hands"--this essentially prevents commercial sites from mirroring this image. Non-commercial-use-only images aren't acceptable. I personally would pull the image. But with or without it, this is a very feature-worthy article. Best, Meelar (talk) 17:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. What I will do involving your image concerns are make a note of it on the takepage of the article. There it can be determined if the image stays are goes. talk page --ZeWrestler Talk 17:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support--your changes address my concerns. The User Friendly image isn't compatible with Wikipedia, unfortunately. He says he's fine with re-use, "as long as no money changes hands"--this essentially prevents commercial sites from mirroring this image. Non-commercial-use-only images aren't acceptable. I personally would pull the image. But with or without it, this is a very feature-worthy article. Best, Meelar (talk) 17:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- The picture is can be used on Wikipedia, because of the following message in the Userfriendly FAQ section. I have already updated the image description page. I am going to update the userfriendly tag, so this issue can be avoided in the future. As for your second object, I will begin working on it.--ZeWrestler Talk 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support Looking back at my original objections, it appears that they have been addressed. This is a marked improvement from the previous version. Well done! slambo 15:52, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you--ZeWrestler Talk 15:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks really good. --Alabamaboy 17:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- One thing I noticed though (and this doesn't change my vote) is that the in-line notes don't add up. The body of the article has 14 in-line notes, but the note section lists 17. Obviously, three notes were deleted at some point but the in-line note system wasn't corrected. This causes the notes to not link up properly. I don't have time right now to fix it so I thought I'd point out the issue.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I added one of the missing tags to the article. (honestly, i forgot to include the note tag for that one.) The other two articles, were used as references, but not cited directly. The information in them is reflected in the article, and because of that, they have been put in the reference section but given no direct reference in the article.--ZeWrestler Talk 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- They were still out of order in the notes section, causing text reference 1 to link to note reference 4, and so on. I think I have corrected this (although there appear to be two references in the notes section (#16 & 17) that have no corresponding note in the body of the article). Please verify that they are now correct and that I didn't mess anything up. --Alabamaboy 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I guess they had to be in order they were used in the article. I had them in alphabetical order. With 16 and 17, those two sources were used in the article, but not directly cited because content and idea were not directly taken from them. Because they were used, i thought it right to include them, without any reference notes. Thanks for making the fix.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, they have to go in the order they're used in the article. That's the most time consuming aspect of using the system. best, --Alabamaboy 20:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I guess they had to be in order they were used in the article. I had them in alphabetical order. With 16 and 17, those two sources were used in the article, but not directly cited because content and idea were not directly taken from them. Because they were used, i thought it right to include them, without any reference notes. Thanks for making the fix.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- They were still out of order in the notes section, causing text reference 1 to link to note reference 4, and so on. I think I have corrected this (although there appear to be two references in the notes section (#16 & 17) that have no corresponding note in the body of the article). Please verify that they are now correct and that I didn't mess anything up. --Alabamaboy 19:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- I added one of the missing tags to the article. (honestly, i forgot to include the note tag for that one.) The other two articles, were used as references, but not cited directly. The information in them is reflected in the article, and because of that, they have been put in the reference section but given no direct reference in the article.--ZeWrestler Talk 18:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
- One thing I noticed though (and this doesn't change my vote) is that the in-line notes don't add up. The body of the article has 14 in-line notes, but the note section lists 17. Obviously, three notes were deleted at some point but the in-line note system wasn't corrected. This causes the notes to not link up properly. I don't have time right now to fix it so I thought I'd point out the issue.--Alabamaboy 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
