Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer security
Shortcut

TheWikiProject Computer Security/Assessment is the department of theWikiProject Computer Security that assesses computer security articles. This page lists its members and facilitates its workflow.

Members

[edit]

If you're interested in assessing articles forWikiProject Computer Security, add your name to the Department list below.

Assessment

[edit]
  • Editors can add an assessment request to the list below. Instructions are in the source.
  • The list is transcluded toWikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment#Open_requests, because the WikiProjects Computer Security andComputing are related.
  • Please also take the initiative to respond to another open request.
  • Please move list items from "Open" to "Serviced" when you attend to them. Instructions are in the source.
  • Deliver your assessment on the talk page of the assessed article.
  • Articles of class Stub, Start, C, and B can be promoted to a higher class.
  • Articles cannot be promoted to class A until they have been subjected to apeer review or aGood Article/Featured Article review.
  • Articles of any class except GA and FA can be demoted to a lower class.
  • Please increment the appropriate field of the assessment statistics table after servicing a list item.

Open requests

[edit]
  1. Gameover ZeuS — requested byEithersummer (talk ·contribs) 04:14, 23 July 2023
  2. Unix Security — requested by 09:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (strongly suspecting: Start-Class, since severely lacking citations)

Serviced requests

[edit]
  1. Factor Analysis of Information Risk — requested byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 - attended to byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs) 18:03, 14 November 2010 - Disposition: Stub class, Mid importance.
  2. IT_risk_management — requested byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs)08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - attended to byPnm (talk ·contribs) 21:22, December 22, 2010 - Disposition: Start class, High importance.[reply]
  3. Security service (telecommunication) — requested byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs) 12:32, 20 December 2010 - attended to byPnm (talk ·contribs) 21:43, December 22, 2010‎ - Disposition: C class, High importance.
  4. IT risk — requested byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs) 08:52, 20 December 2010 - attended to byShiftchange (talk ·contribs) November 17, 2016‎ - Disposition: C class, Top importance.
  5. Cracking of wireless networks — requested byMaarten 1963 13:44, 5 May 2012 - attended to byAunva6 (talk ·contribs) 13:04, March 31, 2013 - Disposition: C class, Low importance.
  6. Hacking Team — requested byblackhat999 (talk ·contribs) 16:09, 07 July 2015 - attended to byFalcon Kirtaran (talk ·contribs) 02:19, October 5, 2016‎ - Disposition: B class, Mid importance.
  7. Lynis — requested byMathias Hollstein (talk ·contribs) 01:02, 20 March 2017 - attended to byWidefox (talk ·contribs) 15:10, March 26, 2017‎ - Disposition: Start class, Mid importance.
  8. KRACK — requested byMelmann (talk ·contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2017 - attended to byWidefox (talk ·contribs) 15:36, October 16, 2017‎‎ - Disposition: Start class, Mid importance.
  9. KRACK — requested byMelmann (talk ·contribs) 12:05, 16 October 2017 - attended to byWidefox (talk ·contribs) 12:42, January 9, 2018‎ - Disposition: C class, Mid importance.
  10. Risk IT — requested byPastore Italy (talk ·contribs)08:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC) - attended to byWidefox (talk ·contribs) 17:39, February 2, 2018‎ - Disposition: Start class, Low importance.[reply]
  11. Hacking Team — requested byblackhat999 (talk ·contribs) 16:09, 07 July 2015 - attended to byRobofish (talk ·contribs) 09:37, May 30, 2020‎ - Disposition: B class, Low importance.
  12. South African hacker history - requested by105.226.13.137 (talk ·contribs) 03:25, September 10, 2020 - attended to byBwoodcock (talk ·contribs) 15:34, 15 June 2021 - Disposition: List class, Low importance.
  13. PLA Unit 61486 — requested byBlank61 (talk ·contribs) 01:35, 9 December 2020 - attended to byBwoodcock (talk ·contribs) 16:08, 15 June 2021 - Disposition: C class, Mid importance
  14. Data sanitization - requested byGaw39938 (talk ·contribs) 21:04, 3 July 2021 - attended to byBwoodcock (talk ·contribs) 12:08, 6 July 2021 - Disposition: B class, Mid importance
  15. Packet Clearing House - requested byBwoodcock (talk ·contribs) 21:50, 15 June 2021
  16. Quad9 - requested byBwoodcock (talk ·contribs) 21:52, 15 June 2021

Rejected requests

[edit]
  1. HP 7935 - requested bymikebar (talk ·contribs) 13:28, 28 April 2010 - Disposition: handled underWikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  2. Raspberry Pi — requested byTrevj (talk ·contribs) 11:42, 1 March 2012 - Disposition: handled underWikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  3. Soft body dynamics — requested byShadowjams (talk ·contribs) 20:58, 6 May 2012 - Disposition: handled underWikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  4. Columbia (supercomputer) — requested byAradiaSilverWheel (talk ·contribs) 14:20, 15 June 2012 - Disposition: handled underWikipedia:WikiProject Computing
  5. Pleiades (supercomputer) — requested byAradiaSilverWheel (talk ·contribs) 13:07, 19 June 2012 - Disposition: handled underWikipedia:WikiProject Computing

Assessment statistics

[edit]
Assessments by Year
YearRequestsDeliveredRejected
2021550
202021?
2019???
2018?2?
201722?
2016?1?
2015???
2014???
2013?1?
2012514
2011???
2010631

Quality

[edit]

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
ClassCriteriaReader's experienceEditing suggestionsExample
 FAThe article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured article criteria:

Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a conciselead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchicalsection headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary style where appropriate.
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.Acid2
 FLThe article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaginglead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful,section headings andtable sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.List of convicted computer criminals
 AThe article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets theA-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as afeatured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g.WikiProject Military history).
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving.WP:Peer review may help.Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GAThe article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
Agood article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation.
  2. Verifiable withno original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it containsno original research; and
    4. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:
    1. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and
    2. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions.
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.Digital forensics
Microsoft Security Essentials
BThe article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation templates such as{{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for anA-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including alead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines.ITIL security management
Computer security
CThe article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantialcleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solvecleanup problems.Antivirus software
Attack (computer)
Malware
StartAn article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.Providing references toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.Gravel
(as of January 2006)
StubA very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
ListMeets the criteria of astand-alone list orset index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.Comparison of computer viruses

In the above table, examples are from:

  • computer security articles (best choice);
  • computing articles (second best choice);
  • other articles (third best choice).

Importance

[edit]

LabelArticles
TopFundamental concepts, standards, companies, important websites, or anything that forms the basis of all information
HighPopular applications, architectures, or anything that covers a general area of knowledge
MidCore components or anything that fills in more specific information of certain areas
LowOptional add-ons that are not fairly important, or anything that is an obscure piece of trivia

Statistics

[edit]
Computer security articles by quality and importance
QualityImportance
TopHighMidLowNA???Total
A11
GA491629
B63547573148
C3019525839750930
Start61302938732511,553
Stub1770426190703
List91122143
Category239239
Disambig77
File88
Project2222
Redirect191850219297
Template3434
NA77
Other6969
Assessed433997061,8426054954,090
Unassessed66
Total433997061,8426055014,096
WikiWork factors (?)ω =16,199Ω = 4.82
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_security/Assessment&oldid=1273729469"
Categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp