Talk:Gitter

Latest comment: 8 months ago by 95.147.238.9 in topic Sparkly gitter by John Johnson

GitHub

edit

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

GA Review

edit
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

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.  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

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

New Vector acquisition

edit

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

Sparkly gitter by John Johnson

edit

I love gitter fab u lous bye ass 95.147.238.9 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Soooo right 95.147.238.9 (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fix you sooooo right Craig revel horwood 95.147.238.9 (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply