Talk:Wikinews Interview: Experts in IT industry comment about security of WiMAX

OR

Based on Chinese Version. I did two brief interviews to Hung and Chang during two different press conferences to ask about the analysis from IS industry. Audio recording attached in this article. Brock ^contact... 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost

I am not sure how to c/e this paragraph: Since several Internet crimes are mostly and progressively respected by several information security companies, some of them disputed its future on its security. After all, everyone want to welcome this new technology but is afraid of its problem to bring about security issues. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on a quick read through, I have a couple comments:

• The title does not make sense
• The article doesn't really address how WiMax will affect computer security positivly or negativly. I kind of get a hint that the article is saying that it will provide more targets to have everyone, their cell phones, and their kitchen sink networked, thus easier to to bad things as there is just more clients on the network to potentially do bad things to, but i'm not really sure if thats what the article is supposed to be implying.

Anyways, looks like an interesting article, but did not make sense to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not ready yet, grammatical/syntax issues

1. The title still does not make sense, as already previously noted by Bawolff (talk · contribs), above. Cirt - (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

   Title fixed.... Brock ^contact... 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

2. The entire first paragraph contains lots of grammatical errors. Cirt - (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
3. 1st sentence of second paragraph is a run-on sentence. Cirt - (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
4. 2nd sentence of second paragraph does not make sense and is a sentence fragment. Cirt - (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Also problems with 3rd sentence of second paragraph, and first sentence of 3rd paragraph. Cirt - (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to emphasize that BrockF5 (talk · contribs) is doing some great work, just that these are a few copyediting concerns for readability of this article. Cirt - (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound pushy...but I see a lot of what could be wrong, but little to fix the issues. I have done a lot of c/e on his articles, and I don't have a lot of time lately, but I think others should also make an effort to fix more than critique. This doesn't mean I am speaking of anyone specific, just in general. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but when I left these comments I did not have time to go through and copy-edit, I was hoping someone else could get to it in the interim. Cirt - (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Time is short for me too. But I can't even get past the first sentence. I wouldn't know what to change it to. --SVTCobra 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we ask him then? He has several articles in develop and so far, I can see only 3 contributers whole are making any effort to publish them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

c/e

I hv estarted to copyedit the article although it still needs a lot of imporvment. Anonymous101 :) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited a bit more. Hopefully it is clearer. And maybe even close to what was intended. - Notmyopinion (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary

To me the "summary" section on this seems like editorial comment. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)