Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2022 Optus data breach/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2022 Optus data breach

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it for a week or so, and I am thinking about making a WP:GA nomination. I'd like someone to check over it, and because it's the first time I'm doing a GA nomination, some advice regarding the article length and the suitability for a good article would be appreciated. Thanks, JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Neuroxic

edit

Hello! I'm currently reading through the article section by section, here are my suggestions / comments. Disclaimer: although I plan to put an article through the WP:GAN process later this year myself, I don't have any GAN articles under my belt, so use your editorial judgement!

Lead Section
edit
  • The second sentence in the WP:LEAD contains too many uses of the word "and"
  • Using the word "stolen" in the lead feels a bit strange. "Stolen" feels a bit sensationalist (even if 10 million users' details were illegally copied!), I think a more precise term could be used instead. It's not like someone broke into a house and stole a filing cabnet, rather they broke into a house and made scans of a filing cabnet. There are other terms that can be used, maybe use "copied" or something similar. There are not too many WP:GA or higher articles on data breaches to reference, but maia arson crimew is a GA article on a hacker, you may want to check out the language used there. In that article, the only time the word "stolen" appears is in a referece, which I think is telling.
Breach section
edit
  • The news articles used in the first and second citations have authors, but the author names do not appear in the citations. Not including the authors in these cases is a fail of WP:CITEWEB.
  • "unable to give numbers as to how many customers were affected" — the phrasing here feels strange.
  • The third citation is missing authorship info.
  • Given that the phrase "human error" is used in quotations in the source in citation 4, I think it should be in quotations in the article per MOS:PMC, and the end of the sentence should have a citation.
  • "Now conducting a criminal investigation" should be rephrased per MOS:SINCE.
  • Fifth citation missing authorship info.
  • The sentence beginning "The same day, a user on BreachForums..." is waaay too long and needs a citation.
  • Monero is a niche enough currency that what it is should be briefly summarized in parentheses after you use its name.
  • The sentence with quotations from the hacker ("too many eyes") needs a citation, basically whenever any source is directly quoted there needs to be a citation.
Governmental response section
edit
  • The first sentence is too long.
  • 7th citation needs author attribution.
  • The sentence beginning "The federal government" has too many uses of the word "and".
  • Double quotation mark in second O'Neil quotation.
  • 9th citation needs author attribution.
  • Format currency per MOS:$, the currency type should come before the number.
  • The sentence beginning "The federal government has also flagged..." is too long.
  • "hosted a roundtable with industry and civil society groups on cybersecurity following the data breach." — when did this happen?
Optus response section
edit
  • The first sentence is too long.
  • Usual comments per citation attribution throughout this section.
  • The Services Australia "asking for the full details..." quote needs a citation.
  • I think saying "Optus will also pay for the replacement of..." is a bit imprecise. As with any company, there's no guarantee that they'll actually do it. I think it's better to phrase this as "Optus promised to pay for the replacement of..."
  • "Amount of Medicare numbers" should be replaced with "Number of Medicare ID numbers"
  • The line "A customer stated that,..." does not feel appropriate for an encyclopedic article; it could probably be rephrased in terms of customers being frustrated.
  • "Rosmarin continued Optus' claim" potentially violates MOS:SAID.
  • The Rosmarin quote needs a citation.
edit
  • Similar comments regarding citation attribution in this section.
  • The first sentence is too long.
  • The sentence "He is being charged..." is at odds tense-wise with "Su pleaded guilty..."
  • Including the abbreviation for Australian Communications and Media Authority even though the abbreviation is not used in the rest of the article is maybe not needed.
Final comments:
edit

I enjoyed the article, and I think it's very important this event be documented. Thank you for your work!

I think with some additional work it will be ready for GAN, however I highly recommend you reach out to an editor who is knowledgeable regarding cyber security articles and have them read over the article too. I cannot gauge how complete it is. Neuroxic (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Neuroxic: Thank you for the feedback, I will start implementing this now. Sorry for the delay in response; I completely forgot about the peer review! Do you possibly know any editors that specifically work in cyber security? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made all of the changed besides the " "A customer stated that,..." part, as I wasn't sure exactly how to rephrase it. I'll leave this open in case other editors can give some more suggestions. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2022_Optus_data_breach/archive1&oldid=1158795418"