Talk:npm left-pad incident

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 2016, the removal of a few lines of code briefly "broke the Internet"?

• Source: https://qz.com/646467/how-one-programmer-broke-the-internet-by-deleting-a-tiny-piece-of-code

• Reviewed:

Created by Liance (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

~Liance^talk 18:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC).

• I just want to point out that the linked source says "almost broke the internet", which is an important qualifier; other sources in the article such as [1] [2] say simply "broke the internet", so perhaps one of them should be used for this hook reference. Ligaturama (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Liance: I'll be reviewing this one.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - not really, and I feel it is redundant here.

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)

Xoak Thank you for the review! This is my first ever submission to DYK so I appreciate the thorough comments. I will go ahead and edit the blurb as suggested. Best, ~Liance^talk 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Liance:, That's great! By the way a few friendly notes for future noms, when an ALT blurb is proposed, you can simply just reply with your support for that blurb or oppose or express your opinion on it. No need to alter your ALT0 (which is the original hook), and notice how I added "a" beside ALT0, since it's pretty much the same fact with minor tweaks. But if the fact differs totally, then it'd be listed as ALT1, ALT2 and so forth. And if you remove anything from the original hook after the review is done, you should mention it for historical/future references (i.e., the removal of the image). Anyway, thank you for your creation and inviting you to contribute to more DYKs. Regards.

Approving the modified original hook.

Feedback from New Page Review process

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)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Npm left-pad incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Source Review

Reliability

Liance, I will start the source review. 48JCL ^(talk) 20:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

[1] Missing access date

[2] Seems good

[3] Missing access date

[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

[8] Missing access date

[9] Missing access date

[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

Hi 48JCL - thank you so much for starting the review! I have corrected the issues with citation formatting, used IABot to add archive links, filled in the missing data for all sources and made the date formatting consistent.

Regarding the TechCrunch source, the piece is listed as a "Featured Article" on their webpage and is a review of incidences of protestware in the open source space. As far as I can tell it does not draw from any promotional material. TC is known for having a lot of routine business and PR-esque coverage but I felt that this piece was a good example of the left-pad incident being cited as a precursor to the protestware trend, and works for verifiability purposes. Let me know what you think. Best, ~Liance^talk 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Liance, sourcing seems to be ok. Check 48JCLTALK 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Liance I’ve addressed some last issues, so I will pass this article. Great job! 48JCLTALK 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.