Talk:Center for Internet Security

Added advert template

Article sounds like an advertising, especially sentences such as - "The intent of the TPA is to combine the purchasing power of governmental and nonprofit sectors to help participants improve their cyber security condition at a lower cost than they would have been able to attain on their own. In order to bring their partners cost-effective services, they work with private and public sectors. They assist with the "time intensive, costly, complex, and daunting" task of maintaining cyber security." - are full of marketing-lingo/bullshit --46.237.211.46 (talk) 11:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Good call - I am working on this. bd2412 T 22:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you did a lot of cleanup on this one. Hope you don't mind but I went ahead and added the logo and also an assessment template so the Wikiproject can come along and assess your work. Great job!--CNMall41 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! bd2412 T 18:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Some suggestions

I removed the WP:OVERLINKS and fixed the infobox image format. You should not hotlink to company board and executive pages in the infobox; just give a few select names, especially any that already have Wikipedia articles. The whole thing reads quite like promotional advertising not an encyclopaedic article.

I've tagged the article as needing third-party references because it relies far to heavily on the organisation's own information and website. For an organisation to be notable that needs to be verified by independent third-party reliable sources. In fact in rereading the article I only see one or maybe two references that are not either associated with the organisation or based on press releases by them, or a blog, which are not considered reliable. It is important that you address this issue.

In several places you use the phrase According to www.cisecurity.org with a hotlink to the company website. Don't do that. State the information with a citation at the end of the sentence or paragraph as appropriate. BTW, free-form citations are not a good idea either; you should use a template, such as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} or {{cite news}} (details of the full template are found on their own pages as linked), filling in a much detail as possible. More citation template details are at WP:CIT. The template formats the data and links the title properly. Most of your citations don't link the page title to the url, but the templates do that automatically. I also ran reflinks on it to fill in the bare url citations. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe your group did a great job editing and explaining the Center for Internet Security. There are several facts included in the edits that are vital to this Wikipedia page. There were no personal biases evident and all the information was straight forward and easy to understand. I specifically enjoyed the overview section because it let me know what i was reading and helped me understand this topic better. However, there are not enough edits to be considered final. There could have been much more information included and more research on the topic. Also, the citations seem confusing and incorrect. All and all, i enjoyed this page and think it is interesting. Ehbaer (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your group did a great job editing your stub article. As a good Wikipedia page is supposed to do, your group laid out straight, factual information. You did not inject your own opinions, and you did not use overly complex language or sentence structure. You backed up your information with plenty of credible sources as well. You used numerous subheadings, which clearly allowed your readers to understand what each section would discuss. I especially liked the sections under Security Benchmarks, where there was an overview section, a mission section, and a resources section. I knew ahead of time what I would be reading. In conclusion, you had a very clear introduction section which gives an easy-to-understand overview, a clear structure, neutral content, and plenty of reliable sources. Overall great job. Mdhartog14 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to condemn Mdhartog14 but for an editor who has made just 6 edits to this wiki, I doubt they have a true understand of what makes for a decent article, especially given the critical but constructive advise in my post immediately above. ww2censor (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi ww2censor, thanks for your feedback and assistance with this article. Your comments are very constructive. Also, thanks for running the Reflinks bot! As you can see from the Educational Program banner, editing and improving this stub is part of a class assignment. They were also assigned to give feedback on another article, so this is their first attempt. Cleeder (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

The lead section is understandable and written clearly, although it comes off like a promotion. It does mention some of the main points of the article, yet it seems to act more as the what could be a separate background/history section rather than a lead section that summarizes the key points of the article. The structure is clear, and the headings are all approriate. The article is relatively well-balanced, but the security benchmarks section is more robust than the others skewing the balance towards that topic. The coverage does not come off as neutral. It reads like an advertisement with all the backlinks to organization's website, and reading through gave the impression that the author was trying to convince the reader that this is a noteworthy organization. The reliability of the sources is in question as most of the sources are from the organization's own website. I would like to see more authoritative and varied sources to provide more weight to the statements made. Overall, a substantial amount of content has been added, and the article has improved. The group improved all of the sections, and were able to make a cohesive article that properly deals with the varying pursuits of the organization. With the exception of the faults that I mentioned, it is a good article that effectively communicates the main points of the Center for Internet Security. Tarwets (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

I applaud those that have worked on editing this article. The outline is clear and shows direction and understanding of the topic. The introduction gives a clear overview of what will be discussed in the article, while providing key points such as the location of the company and how it is run, followed by different aspects of the organization such as security and resources, and concluding with participating organizations. Reader