At first, I took the title's adjective of "awesome" literally and assumed the author's list would be more opinionated as to why those libraries were awesome based on technical merits in comparison to the not-awesome ones. The go-wiki doesn't look to be opinionated so there could have been an opportunity to differentiate his list with battle-tested advice. (Maybe we've been spoiled by aphyr.com's comprehensive reviews of distributed software.)
Alas, I looked a little closer and it looks like the author used "awesome" because it followed in the footsteps of "awesome-python" which itself followed "awesome-php".
Therefore, the author's usage of "awesome" is simply a homage and not an adjective of significant semantics. (Unless the word "awesome" is constrained to mean "the libraries exist" which is amazing because Golang is only 4 years old. Imo, this is too low of a bar to signify as "awesome.")
Alas, I looked a little closer and it looks like the author used "awesome" because it followed in the footsteps of "awesome-python" which itself followed "awesome-php".
Therefore, the author's usage of "awesome" is simply a homage and not an adjective of significant semantics. (Unless the word "awesome" is constrained to mean "the libraries exist" which is amazing because Golang is only 4 years old. Imo, this is too low of a bar to signify as "awesome.")