Talk:Row hammer/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I will review this article page. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you very much! I'm here for all questions, suggestions, improvements to the article, etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Good article nomination on hold edit
This article's Good Article nomination has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2015, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
- NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
- Writing quality is good for this level of quality.
- 2. Verifiable?: Duly cited throughout, no issues here.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Goes over major aspects, no issues here.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in neutral tone throughout, no issues here.
- 5. Stable? ONLY ISSUE here -- please explain this recent edit, and why it is not a problem anymore for article stability. Was there a subsequent discussion with the user? Was a compromise reached? Are issues settled satisfactorily?
- 6. Images?: Two imaged used, both from Wikimedia Commons, both check out okay upon image review.
NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. Within 7 days, the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed by then, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the article! Regarding these recent edits, as explained in the edit summary of my subsequent edit, they actually didn't bring improvements to the article; the addition also kind of instructed the readers, although that wasn't the primary issue. No new content was added, and having such summary-style lists pretty much goes against the WP:PROSE guideline; if we had a much larger amount of the "summed up" prose, such a list might have been acceptable although that would also be debatable. No discussion was started since my edit three days ago, implying that the restoration of a stable article version has been accepted so the overall article stability shouldn't be affected. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Some possible suggestions for improvement:
- I'd make "Mitigation" into its own section and place it after "Implications". Possibly rename "Implications" to "Implications and exploits" to get rid of the then last remaining subsection.
- The paragraph breaks in "Mitigation" seem somewhat arbitrary. E.g. no break between "mitigation" by ECC and counters. I think section should also make clear which mitigations are feasible on existing systems (e.g. increasing the refresh rate), which require hardware changes that have been implemented (e.g. pTRR), and which require hardware changes and have not yet been implemented (counters).
- W.r.t. increasing the refresh rate: I believe JEDEC standards require all chipsets to be able to double the refresh rate to 32ms in order to operate correctly in high-temperature environments, but no more than that (which is rather unfortunate as I mentioned in a section above). It might be interesting to mention this. You'd have to dive in some chipset documentation to confirm all this, though.
I'd say the article is otherwise correct, complete and very readable. —Ruud 14:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Those are very good suggestions, thank you! I'll see to have them incorporated into the article in the next few days, and the part requiring digging through the documentation of certain northbridges/IMCs is going to be particularly enlightening. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)