Talk:Npm left-pad incident/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 17:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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 - 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, ~Liancetalk 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Liance, sourcing seems to be ok. Check 48JCL TALK  16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Liance I’ve addressed some last issues, so I will pass this article. Great job! 48JCL TALK  16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)