Jump to content

Talk:Gitter/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GitHub

[edit]

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

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

Comments and Feedback

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. The 1st reference is a primary reference, it would be better if it wasn't but it's fine as is. checkY
  2. The 2nd reference is fine. checkY
  3. The 3rd reference I can't speak of because I don't speak German.
  4. The 4th reference is fine. checkY
  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. checkY
  7. The 7th reference mentions Gitter once but when it's mentioned, it's mentioned in great detail checkY
  8. The 8th reference is fine checkY

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

Lead

[edit]
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

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • Like other chat technologies
Examples?
  • This section seems a little... Advertise-y.
  • Nothing in "Pervasive logging" (Quicklink) is referenced.

History

[edit]
  • 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

[edit]
  • There's already a tag there ({{expand-section}})
Apart from that, this section is pretty good.

Criteria (Review)

[edit]

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)[reply]