Talk:Gitter/GA1

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

GA Review
__NOINDEX__ :''This review is transcluded from Talk:Gitter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Comments and Feedback

 * Copvio rating: 9.9%(Detection)

Lead

 * 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 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
 * 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:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Fail)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Fail)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: (Fail)
 * 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. -- Anar  chyte   07:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)