Npm left-pad incident has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Npm left-pad incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk
03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
~ Liance talk 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC).
Hi @ Liance: I'll be reviewing this one.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Earwigs show 53.4% possible, but it's a case of false positive as the matched texts are part of a quoted paragraph, so we're good. And it's a bad source to be added here in this nom (paid, and also doesn't fully align with the hook as is, as pointed above by another user). However, sources used in the article are better, while another one doesn't explicitly mention the hook, but 2 does. Another point to be noted here is the number of lines of the code. It varies by publication. Although from the picture provided, yes there are 17 total markdowns, but some of them are empty, so it comes down to 11 "actual" lines. But some sources I checked, even outside this article, do not mention the specific number of lines, and the ones that do, 2 of which are also sourced in the article, have different numbers (17). Also, the article had some copy editing issues, which I've fixed. By the way, you may consider improving the sourcing style on this one (as it's also a GA nominee). Such as interlinking the publications, or consider introducing journal or book citations as well. But for my money, DYK seems good to go, however, the current blurb needs to be modified to something like ALT0a ... that in 2016, the removal of a few lines of code briefly "broke the Internet"? X ( talk) 04:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great article! Good luck on getting it to GA status, and thanks for improving the encyclopedia!
–
Hilst
[talk]
13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Liance ( talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: 48JCL ( talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Liance, I will start the source review. 48JCL ( talk) 20:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
[4] Missing access date, missing publish date
[5] Missing access date, missing publish date
[6] Missing access date, source seems only to be somewhat reliable. See WP:TECHCRUNCH.
[7] Missing access date, missing first and last name
[10] Missing access date, missing first and last name, missing publish date
[11] Missing access date, missing publish date
[12] Missing access date, missing publish date
Npm left-pad incident has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: June 2, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Npm left-pad incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 June 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk
03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
~ Liance talk 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC).
Hi @ Liance: I'll be reviewing this one.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
Image eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Earwigs show 53.4% possible, but it's a case of false positive as the matched texts are part of a quoted paragraph, so we're good. And it's a bad source to be added here in this nom (paid, and also doesn't fully align with the hook as is, as pointed above by another user). However, sources used in the article are better, while another one doesn't explicitly mention the hook, but 2 does. Another point to be noted here is the number of lines of the code. It varies by publication. Although from the picture provided, yes there are 17 total markdowns, but some of them are empty, so it comes down to 11 "actual" lines. But some sources I checked, even outside this article, do not mention the specific number of lines, and the ones that do, 2 of which are also sourced in the article, have different numbers (17). Also, the article had some copy editing issues, which I've fixed. By the way, you may consider improving the sourcing style on this one (as it's also a GA nominee). Such as interlinking the publications, or consider introducing journal or book citations as well. But for my money, DYK seems good to go, however, the current blurb needs to be modified to something like ALT0a ... that in 2016, the removal of a few lines of code briefly "broke the Internet"? X ( talk) 04:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great article! Good luck on getting it to GA status, and thanks for improving the encyclopedia!
–
Hilst
[talk]
13:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Liance ( talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: 48JCL ( talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Liance, I will start the source review. 48JCL ( talk) 20:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
[4] Missing access date, missing publish date
[5] Missing access date, missing publish date
[6] Missing access date, source seems only to be somewhat reliable. See WP:TECHCRUNCH.
[7] Missing access date, missing first and last name
[10] Missing access date, missing first and last name, missing publish date
[11] Missing access date, missing publish date
[12] Missing access date, missing publish date