Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BackupHDDVD/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 15:06, 14 August 2007.

BackupHDDVD

previous FAC

Self-nomination. The article has undergone significant improvement since its last FAC nom and has remained stable for over a month. Noclip 15:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support Oppose~~ - The statement about being forced to rely on new keys for new discs should be balanced with Ed Felton's comments on the likelihood that there will always be a stream of new cracked keys.[1][2] ←Ben^B4 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles discuss compromises to K_p (and K_d) and are therefore irrelevant to the BackupHDDVD utility, which uses neither. Noclip 12:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which keys does it use, and where in the article is this explained? ←Ben^B4 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second half of the "Background" section discusses it. Noclip 02:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Struck opposition. I don't know if it's the technical nature of the subject, or the prose, but it occurs to me that this article could use a copyedit. ←Ben^B4
- I'm reinstating my opposition. There needs to be a clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications. The encryption technology is so central to this utility that you can't expect a novice to understand this article without a more complete explanation. Perhaps a subsection in Background, which is only two paragraphs at present? ←Ben^B4 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "A clear discussion of the different kinds of keys, explaining which keys the utility does and doesn't use, along with an explanation of the implications" is basically what the Background section already is. I have clarified the main points, but you might want to re-read it as what you're talking about is already there. Noclip 00:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, in just the second word you use an abbreviation that isn't defined anywhere in the article (LA.) I'll look at this again in three or four days in hopes you can get some strategic distance from those two paragraphs and expand them. ←Ben^B4 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What this article needs is a free version of the first diagram on this page. I'll try to make one. ←Ben^B4 03:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now I like it! ←Ben^B4 05:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the new diagram has issues. Detail at User talk:Noclip. ←Ben^B4 02:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed you changed the license field, stating that "no license isn't public domain; author retains rights". I can't describe how much copyright paranoia like this irritates me. The software was specifically released by the author into the public domain, and the license field originally said "public domain", but some people objected to that wording on the grounds that public domain isn't a license and suggested that the license field be changed to "none (public domain)". Now you have interpreted this to mean that the software is copyrighted and made the article inaccurate. Noclip 21:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to switch back to Oppose because your revised diagram renders horribly as discussed, unreadable font size and no arrowheads, for example. ←Ben^B4 14:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted the diagram to your version. Noclip 15:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These minor fixes needed:

There was some speculation that the device key belonging to the version of PowerDVD then believed to have been used by the utility's original author to extract keys would be added to revocation lists in future HD DVD titles, preventing the obtainment of valid keys by users for any discs not already released. - could this be rephrased, as it's difficult to follow?
"Early versions were not able to properly decrypt discs" - "not" shouldn't be used when easily avoidable
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, it is recommended not to specify the size of images. The sizes should be what readers have specified in their user preferences. Epbr123 12:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Noclip 13:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a slightly bigger problem to fix, I'm afraid. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, these blogs and forum posts don't seem to be reliable sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Epbr123 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the first two sources listed above should be removed, but I have to defend the third. The author of the forum post is one of the only experts outside of AACS LA with a similar knowledge of the system, and is notable in his own right having been the one to defeat the several successive updates to AACS. I don't know if there is a specific rule about referencing Slashdot, but both usages here seem to pass WP:V to me. Noclip 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noclip, are you referring to Arnezami or Samzenpus? Both of them seem to be nyms, so how can we be certain they are who you think they are? And do you have any sources which show them to be published experts, per WP:SPS? We need some indication that these nyms correspond to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Arnezami. The pseudonym is known to belong to a reliable source because the crack of the 2nd generation of AACS was publicized under it. Noclip 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we deal with the issue that anyone can register and post under a nym ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously more of a policy issue which has been discussed to death, but I think that in this case the pseudonym is acceptable because the person using it established his/her own expert knowledge of the subject under it on the same website that is being referenced. Noclip 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Epbr123 that there are WP:V issues with those sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why plural? All of the sources above except the doom9.org forum post have already been removed. Noclip 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.