Talk:List of tools for code review

code striker
Why was code striker not referenced? Its sourceforge page looks a bit moribund, but its mailing list page still has postings in December 2013. That seems kinda recent to me. 207.235.72.210 (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Doug Seay

Other candidates
213.115.250.42 (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * git appraise https://github.com/google/git-appraise/ -- seems alive enough to me.
 * upsource Tech201805 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why is some software removed from this list?
To be consistent with other lists of software on Wikipedia, this page should be a list of all Code Review software both past and present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.168.230.7 (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe he is maintaining the list to the list of notable code review tools. If it is not notable enough to have its own article/section somewhere else here, why would it be notable enough to be in this list? Please see WP:WTAF and if you really think an item should be here perhaps add it to this list first: WikiProject Computing/Article requests. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:FAILN - " Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages" YetAnotherAlias (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this sentence is not a policy; it is a mere statement of fact. Even the page from which it comes from is not a policy. In other words, it is not escape route for integrating junk in Wikipedia. (I am not saying what you want here is junk; but I am saying you are trying to open policy loophole for junk.) The policies you need to worry about are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOTADVERT, WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 14:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. How would one go about identifying what is policy, and what is not? YetAnotherAlias (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I have since re-read WP:POLICYLIST to find the distinction. YetAnotherAlias (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To find out if something is a policy or a guideline, look below the article title. After a piece of text that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", "(Redirected from ...)" and so on, you'll see a banner that tells you whether this is a policy, or guideline or essay.


 * But there is something far more important to know: Most of the things here happens through consensus. It means you must learn to talk to people instead of reverting and reinstating changes in an article. If you can't strike a deal or compromise with the opposing editor, there are other ways.


 * I spoke to Codename Lisa and convinced her that she was wrong about WP:NOTDIR in this case. I did this because I felt you had reverted the article once too many times for your words to have any effects. I hadn't, so my words still had due weight. Good luck next time.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 17:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability guidelines
As with many other lists on Wikipedia used for promotional purposes, this one is a combination of items with their own articles, items with at least some media coverage but not enough for an article, and items that leave no trace and are arguable not notable enough for this list. I'd like to propose the notability guidelines that I proposed at the Meal kit article.

There are over 150 meal kit companies. This list is intended to be only the most notable ones. Please do not add any external links to meal kit web sites, per WP:PROMO. If the company has a Wikipedia article, please link to that. If the company has media coverage in a reliable source but doesn't have an article yet, please cite the best source. If you plan to write an article for any of the unlinked companies, feel free to wiki-link but it will be red linked until the article is complete. Any entry added without media coverage (indicating lack of notability) will be removed. Please feel free to discuss these unofficial guidelines on the talk page.

Thoughts? TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not automated code analysis or static analysis tools
There is a separate list of automated list of tools for static code analysis so this list is more useful if it remains strictly tools which support manual code reviews. I changed the page a little to make that clearer and have deleted a few tools which seem to only do static analysis.

If adding back tools please make sure that the Wikipedia page covering the tool clearly states that the tool supports manual code reviews.

StacksofHoy (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request
Hello, my name is Alyona Chernyaeva and I’m an employee of JetBrains. I work in the JetBrains Space team as a marketing specialist. We are reviewing Wikipedia articles that relate to our areas and would like our product to be listed in the article. Please review the description below and let me know if it is acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Alyona na (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌. This article lists software that already has an article. An article about the developer is not the same thing. - MrOllie (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)