Npm left-pad incident
Created by
Liance (
talk).
Number of QPQs required:
0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
~Liancetalk 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
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Image eligibility:
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, ~Liancetalk 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.
- not really, and I feel it is redundant here.
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)
