Login
Login

Talk:Digital forensics/GA1

GA Review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Digital forensics/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Digital forensics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to comment on this as I read through. Please respond line by line and I will strike issues as they are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a computer science or information systems specialist. Netiher am I a law enformcement or legal studies expert. Thus, I am a typical untrained reader of this subject. On initial review the second paragraph of the WP:LEAD is a bit abstract to me. I will reconsider this comment after reading the entire article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • A: Ok, I rejigged that paragraph. Moved the part you refer to down to the {{space|bottom of the third para (now the 2nd para)}} bottom of the 4th para (now 3rd paragraph) and expanded it slightly. Does it make more sense in that context? --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

;History

  • "the Florida Computer Crimes Act legislated" is ungrammatical. A law does not legislate. The law was passed to regulate against . . .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} reworded --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "the 1978 Florida Computer Crimes Act which included legislation protecting against the unauthorized modification or deletion of data on a computer system" is still wrong. Better as "the 1978 Florida Computer Crimes Act which included legislation for the unauthorized modification or deletion of data on a computer system"--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, when I checked this morning it was using "for" as you suggest :D but on reflection that is factually inaccurate, so I changed it to "the 1978 Florida Computer Crimes Act which included legislation against the unauthorized modification or deletion of data on a computer system" is that what you meant? --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I seem to have copied the sentence twice and modidfied the wrong one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "laws were brougt in" should be laws were passed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} fixed as suggested --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Canada being the first" Is an ambiguous referent. It refers back to the prior sentence, which does not refer to coutnries as subjects. X Canadian Law was the first or Canada was the first country.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A: reworded, might need more work though --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is still ungrammatical. Just make it two sentences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, the grammar seemed fine (might be a British idiom again). But I did as you suggested :) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we now have an inline citation immediately following "Canada was the first country to pass legislation in 1983."?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Link cyberspace--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It is within a quote, WP:MOSQUOTE discourages linking in it. I could do a "See Also" link? --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • See also is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The contrast in this sentence is not clear: "Digital forensics evolved, during this time, from a number of ad-hoc tools and techniques rather than from the scientific community (in contrast to other forensic sciences)." It compares things to a group of people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} Ok, reworded to In the 90s the science of digital forensics grew out of ad-hoc tools and techniques developed by practitioners. This is in contrast to other forensics disciplines, which grew out of work by the scientific community. - this hopefully makes it clearer --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 90s should be 1990s, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point, I need to have a proper re-read of WP:MOSDATE again ;) tweaked that whole paragraph to make the wording flow better & corrected dates --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You missed the Investigative tools subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 16:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

;Investigative tools

  • It seems like specialist should be specialised.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} specialist is a legit modifier, but it may be a British idiom. Changed to specialised. --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why are all the software tools in the Investigative tools section not linked. If they are notable, they should exist shouldn't they?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A: notability does not cover article content, they are significant tools (within the context of this article), but establishing notability for an article is generally a problem for these tools (for example EnCase is by far the de-facto standard Computer Forensics tool, it is the only one guaranteed to stand in court w/o problems, but as you can see the article is very light). As it is: I hope to fill in come of the links when I have the top level articles to GA standard. --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

::Thanks for the feedback so far. I'm moving house this week, but will get through this as fast as I can. I gave feedback on your last point - and will make article modifications for the other points later :) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

;Uses

  • "For example personal documents", "For example the Internet" and "for example by changing the computer clock" should have a comma after for example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • e.g., is just latin for for example and should also be followed by a comma.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "During the investigation into the Soham murders" should be preceded by for example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It should also be followed by a comma.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Is artefacts spelled correctly?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} Looks like it's one of those words where there is no strong preference either way. I switched it to the US spelling --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

;Digital evidence

  • US v. Bonallo could use a proper legal citation and maybe {{tl|ussc}} (or similar) template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Need more help on this one, I cannot find a template that works (I could manually format it I suppose). {{tl|ussc}} didn't work because this is an appeals court ruling. Let me look into it --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Look around at :Category:Law citation templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} {{t|cite court}} worked. --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 13:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am looking for a more complete citation with number like 432 2nd App, 324 or something like that appended to the current citation. I thought a template might encourage proper full citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I am looking at some articles I have been involved in and see that Saxbe fix does not always include the full citation. Neither John Marshall Harlan nor John Marshall Harlan II does. I guess I will view this as resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • According to Case citation#Lower federal courts what is there is a correct citation for a published opinion from this court, there are no other details that could be added to the best of my knowledge (I have court, year, reporter, volume, opinion - I'm not sure there is anything else :)) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This paragraph needs to be expanded: "Many of the sub-branches of digital forensics have their own specific guidelines for handling and investigating evidence."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • {{done-t}} Expanded with some examples --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

;Forensic Process

Are there some books you could use to beef up this article. At my local borders (where I am sitting right now) the Computer Forensics for Dummies book is out of stock. I know there are other books you could use though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

:Beef up... the content? or the sourcing? I can dig out some more books, unfortunately most of the books we use are reference manuals for various software so not really reliable - so I'll need to grab a few books from Amazon etc. (not a problem) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 13:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

::I was just hoping this would be a meatier article. It just seems a little light compared to some scientific GAs. I was hoping for more content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:::It's a problem knowing how far to go. This is not really a science - it's computing topic more than anything (i.e. a faux science, one of my main gripes with it :)). The other problem is where to go with the content; there are two main aspects to this, the technical aspect of actually digging for information, and the legal aspect of what you can do and where/how it is used. My outstanding plan for this whole field was to use Digital forensics as a starter/overview article (i.e. deal with the history, and then draw the other topics together in summary form) and then focus on the sub-topics individually one by one in their own article. To beef this up I suppose I could merge Digital forensic process, but am somewhat loathe to do that because I can make that a pretty lengthy article when I get the time :). The part that could probably do with expansion is the history, so I will wait and see what I can pick out of the sources I have coming :) (btw, if you want to fail it for being light on content, no worries, it has been useful to get outside input!) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

::::Let me think about this a while. I will be at Borders again this afternoon. I want to poke around there and then comment on use of sources. I will comment further this afternoon. Don't buy any books from Amazon to get a GA. WP is a free collaboration and you should not invest any more in it than you are paid for contributing to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

{{od}} Don't worry, any excuse to buy some more books.... ;) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

:I am sorry. I got caught up in something yesterday and did not get a chance to snoop around at Borders. I'll get back to you in a few days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

::Don't worry, I won't be around for a few days either. Look forward to your comments :) --Errant{{small| [tmorton166] {{sup|(chat!)}}}} 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

:::I have stepped back and looked at this fresh and feel it passes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)