Talk:npm left-pad incident/GA1

GA Review

Passed. 48JCLTALK 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Liance (talk · contribs) 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: 48JCL (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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

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

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.