Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Promoter here, reviewing hooks for promotion. The review is invalid and this hook cannot go forward. The hook is not supported by the source, which doesn't say flame graphs made editing Wikipedia twice as fast. It says that its flame graph is one example of multiple "observability tools", which in turn is one of many factors in increasing the speed of page loading on Wikipedia. (Furthermore, is a Wikimedia Foundation engineer a reliable source on the performance of Wikipedia?) The hook's incorrect factoid appears in the article solely in a caption, not in the text of the article. The article relies on several self-published sources (, , ), as well as corporate blog posts or tech documentation (, , , , , , , ), which is a form of primary source. Articles that appear at DYK must be based on reliable sources. The sources also don't necessarily support the claims the article makes. For example, the statement Flame graphs have seen increases in popularity in the software industry isn't confirmed by any of the several citations at the end of that statement. Instead, it seems to be a form of original research in which the nominator has found several examples of tech company blogs that used a flame graph and used them to support the nominator's conclusion that flame graphs are becoming popular. The article is also too short at 1,493 characters (although that's easily remedied -- however, The Twists and Turns review should have caught that baseline eligibility issue).(Correction: the reviewed version was 1518 characters and it appears editing brought it below that level.)Liance, this is a lot to address and to get this approved you will probably need to rewrite the article to address the fact that so much of it is based on sources we can't use at DYK. You will also need to supply a new hook that's supported by an article you're using in the nomination. Thanks and let me know if you have questions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
This nomination has many obstacles to promotion, and after nearly a week since being pinged about the issues, the nominator has not taken any action despite being active elsewhere on the project. I am marking for closure unless the nominator returns or someone else wishes to adopt the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think that this hook is great.
Promoter here, reviewing hooks for promotion. The review is invalid and this hook cannot go forward. The hook is not supported by the source, which doesn't say 
This nomination has many obstacles to promotion, and after nearly a week since being pinged about the issues, the nominator has not taken any action despite being active elsewhere on the project. I am marking for closure unless the nominator returns or someone else wishes to adopt the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)