I’d disagree that this is complete or comprehensive. Have you had a lot of experience using all of these frameworks?
I also strongly disagree with rating them by github stars which are not related to quality. If you’re going to judge popularity at least do it based on no of real-world projects using it, not internet points.
A grid of features is ok if the features are ones everyone would use, but these are not - the view engines lines for example in this feature chart I find baffling - no-one needs that much choice, and most of those alternatives are not interesting for most. Also ‘Sinatra like api’ is pretty bizarre as a feature bullet, as is MVC - these are design choices, not features. No of examples produced has little to do with ease of use, if anything it points to problems.
Re gorilla etc not being full frameworks- I feel this is rather arbitrary and undermines your argument. If their lack of features is so damning, perhaps the comparison should bear that out? Lack of features is often a bonus, but a minus.
In conclusion, while I think the attempt to provide an overview is an admirable one, this article does not succeed and should focus on the essentials instead - how easy was it to build a simple crud app in each for example? What are the design goals and trade offs if each framework? That information is more useful for those using them for real work.
Like the idea this is seen as a predictable extension of go and should not be surprising - when coming back to scripts it's nice not to have to think too much about what you're doing. I do think this precludes a lot of magic being added (probably a good thing). The most interesting ideas for me here are the simplest ones:
Keep the syntax the same as go
Omit the preamble required by go programs (package main etc)
Worry less about good performance (in scripts this is often not important)