JimKillock

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome JimKillock! I'm glad that you are joining the drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

CactiStaccingCrane (talk)18:52, 1 February 2024 UTC [refresh]via JWB and Geardona (talk to me?)

Eleanor of Castile

Hi JimKillock, I've now completed my c/e; I removed quite a lot of what seems to be unnecessary commentary from the article; see my edit summaries for details. I've added a [clarification needed] tag in the final paragraph of "Historical reputation" – "in recent decades" is ambiguous and needs context. I think "Death of Eleanor" --> "Procession, burial and monuments" could be rearranged to separate the subjects; the journey to London, the burials and the monuments. That's just my subjective view though. Anyway, good luck with this interesting and informative article. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 04:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Would Cookie stuffing get through FAC

Do you think Cookie stuffing pass WP:FAC? If not, what are the areas I should work on for it get through FAC? I wanted to tackle a more limited topic in the security/privacy category before coming back to vastness of Cross-site leaks. sohom@enwiki 05:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Sohom Datta, this is a much simpler topic for average users to understand. At a glance, (1) the lead is expected to summarise the overall topic and work as its own overview. This should cover all the main points. What are the "dubious techniques" is not covered, for example. Mention of the use of pop ups, for example, would help explain this. (2) In the techniques section, I didn't understand quite how redirects would trick browsers into thinking the cookie was set by a different domain. (3) Generally checking for comprehension of tricky concepts is a good idea.

FWIW I didn't think Cross-site leaks was far off regarding comprehensibility, but it seemed like the suggestions I'd come up with to resolve the need for easy access to comprehendable content for the for average users didn't feel right to you. This is something of a weakness in the WP approach; one can suggest but it is up to the active editors (in this case you!) what to do. When you come back to the article, I think you just need to decide how you want to tackle comprehension for an average user, and then I and others can help you with your chosen approach. Jim Killock (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I've tried to address a few of the points you raised. Most of the rest of the article seems fairly easy to read except maybe the 3rd paragraph of Techniques. (does it need some expanding? or is the current prose okay?)

Wrt to Cross-site leaks, what killed the project (for now) was not issues surrounding the comprehensibility, but rather the fact that I did not feel that the prose was accurate enough for a FA due to developments over the last few months (there has been at least two new research papers detailing newer attack pattern and a slew of security improvements from browsers (like the third-party cookie deprecation initiative) that should make cross-site leaks significantly harder to execute. Sohom (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Thanks for the info! On Cookie stuffing:

• it needs a thorough copy edit
• the introduction lacks some further details to fully summarise the article, eg the impact of cookie stuffing, the kinds of fraud involved etc.
• wire fraud isn't fully explained, it is assumed we know what it is

Jim Killock (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for an FACR

Hi Jim, if you have some time, would you consider adding your comments over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sam Manekshaw/archive5? I do understand you are busy with the FA reassessment of Edward I, but if you could take out the time to comment above, that would be awesome. Also, do you know what is the exact consensus required for FAC reviews? I believe I will not ever be getting a support from one particular reviewer and one FAC coordinator believes the opinion of this reviewer to be gospel and acts only on its basis. Matarisvan (talk) 11:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Matarisvan, the issue seems a simple one at his point: when doing spot source checks, the reviewer did not find the required information. Therefore to get past FAC, you need to go through the article and check each citation provides the information for the sentences or paragraphs, and change the citation where it doesn't match. The criteria is simple enough, it has to be properly and accurately sourced, so getting the reviewers to change their minds is also in principle simple enough. However I can also see that it would be a lot of work.

FA and GA reviews are meant to do these checks and be confident of accuracy. Given that sourcing and accuracy is Wikipedia's core principle, you will only get them to budge by doing the work.

Otherwise, you could only challenge this by someone else doing source checks and showing that the reviewer was incorrect. The FA co-ordinators don't operate on consensus alone, but also by trust and dialogue. When it comes to source checks, people generally rely on an individual to do the checks because it is a lot of work. If you think he's got it wrong, in the examples he has previously given, you'd need to outline how that is the case. Jim Killock (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I asked for what statements the reviewer found inaccurate and uncited, I have received no response yet. But your idea of showing how the issues noted last time were addressed is brilliant, I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier. Would you be able to comment this time around? Your comments last time were very helpful. Matarisvan (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I have replied. I think it would be most helpful to get the scans that were requested. I agree with the reviewer that removing and replacing sources with online sources like magazine sites isn't best practice. They tend to make mistakes, where book authors are more careful. Jim Killock (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jim, did you see my latest comment? That reviewer did not even bother to read the updated version of the article and just copypasted their comments from the last FAC review. Does this not signal un-encylopedic and non collaborative behavior? Matarisvan (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)