Wikipedia:Peer review/Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition/archive1

Hacking: The Art of Exploitation Second Edition

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see how my article is doing and I need it to be peer reviewed for one of my classes at school. Thanks, Elmsy2424 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Well, we have a problem. You've set it up as a plot summary, which is great, but that's not what Wikipedia normally does for book articles. I co-authored The Sword of Shannara a while back; although it's a fiction book, note how the plot summary takes up only one section, but the background as to why he wrote it etc. takes up the rest.
  • Second: there's already an article on this book at Hacking: The Art of Exploitation. I would recommend moving some of what is in the article to there, then using the rest to beef up other Wikipedia article or create stubs—assuming Auntieruth will give you credit for doing this. By "create stubs" I mean this, for example: why don't you take your "hybrid cipher" mini-section and create a stub at Hybrid cipher?

• • Continuing on: in-line citations are necessary. You can set it up like this in the edit window:

Sentence blah blah blah end of sentence.<ref>Erickson, ''Hacking'', pagenumber</ref>

• • Then, at the end of the article:

== Bibliography ==
*{{cite book |last=Erickson |first=Jon |title=Hacking: The Art of Exploitation |location=San Francisco, California |publisher=No Starch |year=2008 |edition=2nd |isbn=1593271441 |oclc=263694652}}

• —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the intention of the assignment, but considering elmsy didn't decide on a project until recently (or at least tell me until recently), that may be what has to be done. I'd prefer to see at least one article expanded beyond stub, based on what the assignment is. Basically, a several stubs based on the book, and a B class article on Hybrid cypher incorporating 3-4 reliable sources (including the book) is fine. OR, a substantial expansion of First Edition to explain and clarify any changes based on the second edition, plus a summary and explanation of reviews of the second edition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments they were very helpful. I was unsure of how to make it better because it is a non-fiction book and there is not a plot summary or themes that I could go into depth about. I will just expand the first edition, create the hybrid cipher article and clarify the changes on the second edition. Elmsy2424 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)