Talk:Gitter

Gitter was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 26, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[GitLab#Company|GitLab]] The anchor (#Company) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GitHub

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

GA Review

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)[reply]

Comments and Feedback

Copvio rating: 9.9%(Detection)

References

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

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

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 ({{expand-section}})

Apart from that, this section is pretty good.

Criteria (Review)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:
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:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
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. --Anar chyte 07:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Vector acquisition

I've added some information about the New Vector acquisition/future plans to the History section. I'm not sure about the "Developer(s)" link in the infobox, though--is it New Vector Limited or a subsidiary? TheAnonymousAlligator (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]