Talk:Gitter/GA1

GitHub

Only for GitHub? I think it should be changed Tech201805 (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 03:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments and Feedback

• Copvio rating: 9.9%(Detection)

References

1. The 1st reference is a primary reference, it would be better if it wasn't but it's fine as is. Y
2. The 2nd reference is fine. Y
3. The 3rd reference I can't speak of because I don't speak German.
4. The 4th reference is fine. Y
5. The 5th reference is a link to a GitHub repository, correct me if I'm wrong but that isn't the most reliable. The information found in the reference doesn't show the sentences or ideas that's being referenced by it. N
6. The 6th reference is primary but it is in the same boat as the first one, if it could be replaced it'd be better but it's fine as is. Y
7. The 7th reference mentions Gitter once but when it's mentioned, it's mentioned in great detail Y
8. The 8th reference is fine Y

Although, with all this said, the "Pervasive logging" (Quicklink) section has no references at all.

Lead

This section will only talk about the lead section and will not include any issues with any other sections

• Gitter is provided as software-as-a-service, with a free option providing all basic features [...]

Does this mean it's a "Freemium" piece of software? The wording in this sentence is a little off.

"Gitter is a freemium piece of software with the free option providing all the basic features [...]"

• The lead has lots of information that isn't mentioned anywhere else, which is against WP:LEAD.

Features

This section will cover all the subsections of "Features"

• This section is just a list and not a very good one at that. The "Apps" (Quicklink) section isn't incorporated into the lead nor the Infobox.
• GitHub-flavored

Does this mean "Similar to GitHub"?

• The "Integrations with non-GitHub sites and applications" (Quicklink) section isn't incorporated into the lead as the lead only talks about the GitHub support. It also seems a little useless or could be reworded in a drastic way to make it legible.
• One or two paragraphs would fix most of the problems with this section. Currently it's just a list.
• If it is going to be a list, make it like what's said here.

Advantages and disadvantages

• Like other chat technologies

Examples?

• This section seems a little... Advertise-y.
• Nothing in "Pervasive logging" (Quicklink) is referenced.

History

• Gitter was created by some developers

Who?

In the article referenced, it says Mike Barlett. Why isn't he mentioned anywhere in the article?

Implementation

• There's already a tag there ({{expand-section}})

Apart from that, this section is pretty good.

Criteria (Review)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: (Fail)

I'm failing this article for GA because of the above issues. There are too many current issues that need to be addressed before this becomes a good article. --Anarchyte 07:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)