Talk:IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy/GA1

! width="30" | Rate

! width="300"| Attribute

! | Review Comment

| colspan="3" | 1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:

{{GATable/item|1a|fail|3="The conference, initially conceived by researchers Stan Ames and George Davida in 1980 as a small workshop for discussing computer security and privacy, gradually evolved into a larger gathering within the field."

I feel like this sentence could be split into two as it feels a bit long.

There are some terms and sentences that I feel require a bit more explanation to be understood by a broad audience. I highlighted these sections in 3a. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|1b|fail|3=The lede seems quite short. I feel like it could be expanded to talk more about what happens at the conference. Some of the information from the rest of the article could be incorporated into the lede as well. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

| colspan="3" | 2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}, as shown by a source spot-check:

{{GATable/item|2a|pass|3=CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|2b|fail|"In 2021, researchers from the University of Minnesota submitted a paper titled "On the Feasibility of Stealthily Introducing Vulnerabilities in Open-Source Software via Hypocrite Commits" to the 42nd iteration of a conference."

The source given doesn't say that the paper was released in 2021 or that it was submitted to the 42nd iteration of a conference.

"They aimed to highlight vulnerabilities in the review process of Linux kernel patches, and the paper was accepted for presentation in 2021."

The source provided doesn't talk about what the paper aimed to do

" Despite undergoing review by the conference, this breach of ethical responsibilities was not detected during the paper's review process. This sparked significant criticism from the Linux community and broader cybersecurity circles."

The source provided did not back up this claim.

I was able to access and verify all other sources. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|2c|fail|per above. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|2d|pass|CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

| colspan="3" | 3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:

{{GATable/item|3a|fail|3="The conference uses a single-track model for its conference proceedings, deviating from the multi-track format common in many similar conferences focused on security and privacy"

Would it be possible to expand a bit one what a single track model is? The next sentence does expand on the topic a bit but I still don't understand what single vs multi track is.

"IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy considers papers from a wide range of topics related to computer security and privacy."

Could you expand on what topics are discussed?

"They aimed to highlight vulnerabilities in the review process of Linux kernel patches, and the paper was accepted for presentation in 2021. However, their methods involved writing patches for existing trivial bugs in the Linux kernel in ways such that they intentionally introduced security bugs into the kernel."

Could you explain a bit more about what the aims of this study were and how they introduced security bugs? Also the average reader most likely doesn't know what the linux kernel is and I believe this should be expanded on. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

"In 2022, a study conducted by Ananta Soneji et al. showed that review processes of top security conferences, including the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy were exploitable. They identified a lack of objective criteria for paper evaluation and noted a degree of randomness among reviews provided by conference reviewers as the major weaknesses of the peer review process used by the conferences."

The paper mentioned went into a lot more detail on how the review process was exploitable, I feel as though you could also go into more detail about what exactly made the process easy to exploit. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|3b|pass|3=CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|4|pass|3=CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|5|pass|3=CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

| colspan="3" | 6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:

{{GATable/item|6a|pass|3=Couldn't find any free images online so not having a photo is appropriate here. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|6b|pass|3=Per above. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}

{{GATable/item|7|fail|I found several parts of the article that were not backed by sources. The article also needs to be expanded a bit so that the average reader can understand all of the terms used. Several of the sources provided go into more detail that I feel could be incorporated into the article. I did find a few grammar issues so the article could probably benefit from being put through some type of grammar checker. Overall I think the article has a strong foundation it just needs to be built upon. I originally had some sections marked as on hold but because I found quite a few issues I feel as though these issues may need more work hence why I changed them to fail. Good work to those who wrote the article as it did a good job of giving a balanced overview of the topic without bias. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

}}