This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer securityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer securityTemplate:WikiProject Computer securityComputer security
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
Hey @Pietrus1, the review should be done at Talk:2015 TalkTalk data breach/GA1 regardless of whether it is finished or not. You can access this page by clicking "start review" on the GA nomination listing. Could you copy your review over to that page? I would do it myself, but if I do, the GA review bot would count it as my review, rather than yours. I removed the review from the GA mentorship page because it was causing significant clutter, but you can still access the review from the historical revision to copy the data over to the proper review page. I have watchlisted the review page so I'll be able to see when you do this and you won't need to ping me.
Apologies for being a little slow in getting to this. I was busy IRL and with an AfD nomination which has concluded now. By the way, the ping above did not work, because my username is actually User:It is a wonderful world (you could have seen there was an issue because the link to "IAWW" is a red link). Also read Help:Talk pages#Notifications to ensure your pings work in the future. IAWW (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
@AIWW Could you walk me through some of the categories I did not know how to address? I marked all of those as holds. The rest I believe I can tell what I should be looking for, but if anything looks incorrect, let me know. Also, for small issues that I noticed reading the article, I was under the belief it would be inappropriate to quickly fix them? Is that correct? Pietrus1 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Pietrus, thanks for moving the review here. I shall get to this tonight, but in the meantime, you're welcome to fix small, uncontroversial things yourself. IAWW (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hey Pietrus, this is a great first attempt at a review. Note that this GA reviewing guide is excellent. I highly recommend giving it a read if you ever get stuck with how to evaluate criteria in the future. Here, I will critique your review so far, and explain how to review the sections you have not yet done. Note this is quite a well-written article (better than the average GAN nomination), so while it is a good one to start with, there it not a lot of examples of stuff to fix.
When requesting improvements/pointing out issues, you should be as specific as possible. For example There are additionally a few basic spelling and grammar issues throughout that must be addressed. is too vague. You should list each specific issue, or if they are small issues, fix them yourself. Another instance of this issue is some of the links to sources are not working and do not have archived alternatives provided – what specific links have issues? If there are too many issues to list in a certain area, you can just list 2–3 specific examples and then state that this is a recurring theme.
Plagiarism can be checked by using the "copyvio detector" (also known as "Earwig") in the GA toolbox at the top right of the review. Check for any significant similarities and determine whether they are copyvio issues according to the relevant guidelines (WP:CLOP is a good guide). Earwig will not spot every copyvio though. It cannot access every online source and obviously cannot access offline sources. Therefore you should also check for plagiarism in the spot check, which is the subject of the next bullet point.
To check the material is an accurate representation of the sources, a sample of citations should be checked to make sure they fully support the information in the article. You can lay out your spot check like, for example:
[4a]: Y
[4b]: Y
[8]: N: explanation of what is not supported
[9]: Y
Niche topics are the easiest to assess for scope. You just have to make sure most the information in reliable sources is included in the article. You can do this with some internet searching for any non-included sources.
With unnecessary detail, reading WP:DETAIL will provide you with the necessary information to review this area. One thing I would add though is that unnecessary detail typically arises from either WP:COATRACK issues or excessive reliance on WP:PRIMARY sourcing.
This should be enough for you to mostly finish the review. I checked some of the major criteria that you had already checked myself and didn't find any issues. IAWW (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I didn't find the guide you linked:).
Specificity - I believe we have addressed the specific issues raised, but I will definitely try to be more specific in the future in the manner suggested.
Earwig gives no violations, so I will do the manual check now before posting the update template.
'The prose generally flows well, but there are a number of overly-long sentences that could be broken up into two or more. Here is an example: "The ICO found that the attack exploited three legacy webpages inherited from TalkTalk's 2009 acquisition of Tiscali, that the underlying database software was outdated and had not been patched despite a fix having been available for several years, and that earlier SQL injection attacks in July and September 2015 had not prompted remedial action because the pages were not being adequately monitored" Even if they use simple language and grammatical patterns, sentences like this reduce readability. Please re-write these. There are additionally a few basic spelling and grammar issues throughout that must be addressed.
Fail
(b) (MoS)
There reviewer has left no comments for this section.
The link which was not working for the reviewer has been archived. The archive is functional.
Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)
There is a mix of sources which I feel is appropriate. Many of the sources are to primary sources, but academic secondary sources are also used. Non-academic secondary sources are used occasionally, but none which are obviously dubious.
Pass
(c) (original research)
There does not appear to be any original research in this article.
Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)
Earwig and a manual pass review the no issues. Much of the links are to public news sources and those which are not are not presented inappropriately.
Pass
Broad in its coverage:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (major aspects)
This covers all major aspects of the topic as far as I can tell. It is definitely at least sufficient for GA.
Pass
(b) (focused)
I believe the article is sufficiently focused as f 2026-02-04
Pass
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Notes
Result
The article has no obvious neutrality issues.
Pass
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Comment
Result
It is stable as of 2026-02-04.
Pass
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
Criteria
Notes
Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)
Currently, one image used is someone's own work offered for use and another image is public.
Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)
All images which are present are captioned accurately.
Hello, thank you for reviewing this article @Pietrus1 (and for keeping an eye on everything @IAWW).
As a quick note, per WP:GAN/I#HOLD, we wouldn't normally put something on hold until the review is completed. However I'm happy to respond to the things that have already been brought up.
Sources - I've been through the sources today and I can't find any that are not working (I did replace one, and then realised that it had an achive link) What am I missing?
"There are additionally a few basic spelling and grammar issues throughout that must be addressed." I've been through today and spotted a few. Let me know if the ones you were thinking about have been fixed.
Regarding long sentences, I would push back a little per WP:GANOT - I would suggest that sentence length, unless ridiculous, is not part of the Good Article criteria.
What should I replaced the notes of hold with? I'm new to this and not fully knowledgeable. I was just using the "hold" field as a placeholder field for things I did not know how I should assess as a new reviewer.
As to spelling and grammar, I do believe you go most of what I was referring to. I read the article again and all that struck me was one stray period.
Long-sentences: I was going off of bullet-point one: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing, even if you might have phrased it differently." Long sentences do reduce readability a bit at times, so trying to put myself in the shoes of someone else, I was under the impression this should be changed.
Can you make an archive with the Krebs article? I cannot seem to get it working on a few different wifi networks, so something is clearly wrong. I would imagine if I am having issues someone else might come along who has issues as well.
For longer sentences, that was the one that I subjectively identified as having the lowest readability and your fix did a lot to help! I suppose I also don't love sentences like "Early estimates suggested that personal and banking details of up to four million customers might have been at risk, but TalkTalk later stated that 156,959 customer accounts had been accessed, including 15,656 sets of bank account and sort code details and partial data from 28,000 credit and debit cards." if I put myself in the frame of mind of someone with a lower reading level (which I was under the impression we might want to given the globalized use of the English language). These could probably be fixed with something like a full stop and: "...Included among these accessed customer accounts were 15,656 sets of bank accounts..." This is very nitpicky stuff, so you'll have to apologize as I just don't know what I should and shouldn't be highlighting at this level of detail. Is that getting into the territory of "Tedious style nit-picks" which are advised against? Maybe. I want clarity on this. Pietrus1 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
Archive link added.:) On length of sentances. I might point out that today's FA Rosa Parks, which has been reviewed to within an inch of it's life, has this 83 word beuty, which is almost twice as long as the one you quote above... "Though the account may have been partially or entirely fictionalized, biographer Jeanne Theoharis notes that many of the elements of the account "correspond to Parks's life", speculating that Parks "wrote [the account] as an allegory to suggest larger themes of domination and resistance", or that, "given that more than twenty-five years had passed before she wrote [the account] down, she augmented what she said to Charlie that evening with all the points that she had wished to make as she resisted his advances"" Joe (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
While long sentences can be an issue at GA, they are only an issue when impacting the GA clarity or grammar criteria. Since the long sentences in this article are well structured and grammatically correct, they are of no concern. E.g. reading Early estimates suggested that personal and banking details of up to four million customers might have been at risk, but TalkTalk later stated that 156,959 customer accounts had been accessed, including 15,656 sets of bank account and sort code details and partial data from 28,000 credit and debit cards. slowly, pausing at each comma, it's very clear what the sentence means. IAWW (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree, my thought was "putting yourself in the shoes" of not quite the lowest common denominator (LCD) as this is not the simple wiki, but an "off-LCD." Pietrus1 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
: explanation of what is not supported
Fail
On hold