Truthfully, I've been having trouble trying to sort out what the various items reference here are; see the superscripted queries (placed by an anonymous IP). I did try to fix the wikilink targets on a couple of them, but one didn't have an obvious target so it remains broken atm.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Truthfully, I've been having trouble trying to sort out what the various items reference here are; see the superscripted queries (placed by an anonymous IP). I did try to fix the wikilink targets on a couple of them, but one didn't have an obvious target so it remains broken atm.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Removed wikilinks whose target is wrong. Added context words around some wikilinks as not all readers are familiar with them. Removed the inline 'What' comments next to those wiki links which already had a correct target and an explanation.
There were significant verification difficulties. Amongst other things, I cut rather a lot of material that I couldn't find, including the entire last paragraph; the amount of material cut bothered me, even with part of it being at the very bottom of the inverted pyramid.
Neutrality was thorny. Two of the three sources were the announcements by the companies involved, inherently biased (although GitHub at least had the honesty to write their announcement in first person, whereas Microsoft wrote theirs in third person falsifying the form of a third-party news report about the story), leaving one external source with a financial, rather than software, perspective. The issue that comes to mind here is the implications of the acquisition for the open-source ecosystem, which none of these three sources seems likely to provide insight into; the only allusion to this seems to be contained in the inherently biased account by GitHub. I decided to allow the point since it is a short piece and there is some mention of the issue, clearly labeled as coming from GitHub. However, what was actually said needed some very careful tweaking — the GitHub statement was very indirect when referring to the issue.
There is still some lingering question re the lack of explanation of of VS Code, Git LFS, Electron, and Azure.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
There were significant verification difficulties. Amongst other things, I cut rather a lot of material that I couldn't find, including the entire last paragraph; the amount of material cut bothered me, even with part of it being at the very bottom of the inverted pyramid.
Neutrality was thorny. Two of the three sources were the announcements by the companies involved, inherently biased (although GitHub at least had the honesty to write their announcement in first person, whereas Microsoft wrote theirs in third person falsifying the form of a third-party news report about the story), leaving one external source with a financial, rather than software, perspective. The issue that comes to mind here is the implications of the acquisition for the open-source ecosystem, which none of these three sources seems likely to provide insight into; the only allusion to this seems to be contained in the inherently biased account by GitHub. I decided to allow the point since it is a short piece and there is some mention of the issue, clearly labeled as coming from GitHub. However, what was actually said needed some very careful tweaking — the GitHub statement was very indirect when referring to the issue.
There is still some lingering question re the lack of explanation of of VS Code, Git LFS, Electron, and Azure.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
