Template:Did you know nominations/Cross-site leaks
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 01:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cross-site leaks
- ... that cross-site leaks can be used to gain information about your web browsing habits? Source: https://secweb.work/papers/2021/vangoethem2021leaks.pdf
- Reviewed:
5x expanded by Sohom Datta (talk). Self-nominated at 07:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Cross-site leaks; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Noting that this is my first ever nomination, so let me know if I have messed up somewhere -- Sohom (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Also noting that this is something I tend to work on IRL so let me know if the article is too technical ? -- Sohom (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Article was created on 31 August but DYK check tool shows expansion in October so no issues there. Copyvio detector checks out and hook is short enough and interesting enough. QPQ not needed for user's first nomination. I do have a few comments, however:
- I can't help thinking given the hyphen usage in the sources that the article should really live at Cross-site leaks.
- The article needs a good copy-edit before featuring on the main page - there are several spelling/grammatical errors (e.g. orgin/origin and users/user's) and inconsistencies (e.g. url and URL).
- Hook fact does appear in the article and is cited, although not using the reference provided here (which as a Wiki page wouldn't count as a reliable source anyway), but the sources in the article are journals so that's fine
- Sourcing meets the minimum one per paragraph, however I don't see what makes appsecmonkey.com a reliable source - can you provide a better reference?
- I will watch this page and revisit when the above points have been addressed. Thanks, BigDom (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- BigDom I've fixes the issues that you mentioned:
I can't help thinking given the hyphen usage in the sources that the article should really live at Cross-site leaks.
- Moved the page to the correct hyphenated usage.
The article needs a good copy-edit before featuring on the main page - there are several spelling/grammatical errors (e.g. orgin/origin and users/user's) and inconsistencies (e.g. url and URL).
- Gave the article a copyedit via spell check software.
Hook fact does appear in the article and is cited, although not using the reference provided here (which as a Wiki page wouldn't count as a reliable source anyway), but the sources in the article are journals so that's fine
- I have replaced the cite with a citation to a paper submitted for the SecWeb workshop, however, XSleak wiki tends to be fairly reliable in the field and is cited by multiple journal papers that go into depth about the topic.
Sourcing meets the minimum one per paragraph, however, I don't see what makes appsecmonkey.com a reliable source - can you provide a better reference?
- Ditto as above.
- -- Sohom (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sohom Datta: Thanks for the edits, it's looking even better now. I made a couple of very small edits myself (adding a missing apostrophe and wikilinking web application; hope this isn't a problem). Anyway, happy to
support this now. BigDom (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sohom Datta: Thanks for the edits, it's looking even better now. I made a couple of very small edits myself (adding a missing apostrophe and wikilinking web application; hope this isn't a problem). Anyway, happy to
- BigDom I've fixes the issues that you mentioned:
