Wikipedia:Peer review/Python (programming language)/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:22, 19 February 2009

Latest revision as of 17:36, 30 September 2024

(6 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 6:

* A script has been used to generate a semi-[[User:AndyZ/peerreviewer|automated]] review of the article for issues relating to grammar and [[WP:MOS|house]] style; it can be found on the [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/February 2009#Python (programming language)|automated peer review page]] for February 2009. [[Category:Peer review pages with semiautomated peer reviews]]

**[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Issues from automated review now fixed. --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 09:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

'''This peer review discussion has been closed.'''<br/> <noinclude>[[Category:March 2009 peer reviews]]</noinclude>

{{Peer review page|topic=engtech}}

I've listed this article for peer review because I think the article is of high quality and hope to see it progress to a Featured Article eventually. And since peer review is one of the steps on the way to a FA, I'm requesting it.

Line 18:

The flow of the article seems unusual. The development process of the language, including such details as where the developers check the code in, is discussed before the language itself is introduced. I'd suggest moving the ''Development'' section later in the article, and remove unnecessary details such as the historical ___location of the CVS repository.

:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Done''' --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 09:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In some places, there are excessive footnotes for uncontroversial material. Nobody doubts that Python is used at YouTube or that the original BitTorrent client was written in Python -- so why do these claims need ''three'' citations apiece?
:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Fixed''' by other editor --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 01:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In contrast, some less well-supported statements (see below) are sparsely cited and refer to advocacy material as sources.

There are a lot of statements of intent and goals: Python is intended to be flexible, easy to learn, easily extensible, simple, etc. It seems to me that someone somewhere has to have studied whether these are actually ''accomplished''. Have there been any studies on (say) students learning Python, on whether it is actually easier to learn? It's nice to talk about design goals, but they're ''all over'' this article.

Some statements are made which sound like Python advocacy, and which are sourced to documents at <ttcode>python.org</ttcode>. Example:

:Python requires less boilerplate than traditional statically-typed structured languages such as C or Pascal, and has a smaller number of syntactic exceptions and special cases than either of these.

Line 29 ⟶ 31:

It seems to me that discussion of the language's type system and object system could be more carefully separated from the list of built-in types. (And there's some interesting history to be discussed there, notably type/class unification and the whole old-style/new-style classes thing.)

:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Done''', although I don't personally have enough time to write on old vs new style classes at the moment, so I added a notice template about it. --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of types, there are a few places where "statically typed" is used to mean "explicitly typed" (i.e. C/Java-like), which is an error.

:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Done''', and it's [[manifest typing]] for the record :-) --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

--[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] ([[User talk:Fubar Obfusco|talk]]) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Line 40 ⟶ 42:

The article could also use a cleanup with regard to NPOV. The sections that I read were unrelentingly positive about the language's features without discussing the tradeoffs and risks. Several sentences discuss the intent in designing the language. These sentences do not reference reliable sources, and do not name the person or group whose intent is described. This, and occasional references to van Rossum as a "benevolent dictator", gives the impression that the article was written by insiders, and suggests a conflict with the policies of neutrality and verifiability. Someone else also commented about this in the talk page archives. They posted a detailed list of problems, many of which have not been addressed.

Another area in need of improvement is readability.

Another area in need of improvement is readability. The Usage section is particularly difficult to read because so many of the sentences are disguised lists. If the contents of the lists are critical, it may be worthwhile to reformat them as such. You could alternately keep them in sentence form, but trim them down to a few interesting subjects, and explain them in more detail. Another way you can improve readability is to go through the article and make sure that the subject of each sentence has already been introduced. One sentence that starts with an unfamiliar subject can be found at the beginning of the Development section: "A Python Enhancement Proposal (or PEP) is a...". Every reader who is not already familiar with the Python development process will be lost when they read this sentence, because they will have no idea what a PEP has to do with the development of Python. The section needs to start with something like "Python was developed...", and then go on to gently introduce the reader to such arcane subjects as PEPs and release candidates.

The Usage section is particularly difficult to read because so many of the sentences are disguised lists. If the contents of the lists are critical, it may be worthwhile to reformat them as such. You could alternately keep them in sentence form, but trim them down to a few interesting subjects, and explain them in more detail.

:[[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] '''Done''' refactored into lists --[[User:Cybercobra|Cybercobra]] ([[User talk:Cybercobra|talk]]) 22:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another area in need of improvement is readability. The Usage section is particularly difficult to read because so many of the sentences are disguised lists. If the contents of the lists are critical, it may be worthwhile to reformat them as such. You could alternately keep them in sentence form, but trim them down to a few interesting subjects, and explain them in more detail. Another way you can improve readability is to go through the article and make sure that the subject of each sentence has already been introduced. One sentence that starts with an unfamiliar subject can be found at the beginning of the Development section: "A Python Enhancement Proposal (or PEP) is a...". Every reader who is not already familiar with the Python development process will be lost when they read this sentence, because they will have no idea what a PEP has to do with the development of Python. The section needs to start with something like "Python was developed...", and then go on to gently introduce the reader to such arcane subjects as PEPs and release candidates.

I would like to do a more thorough review, but I think the best way to improve the article as it is would be for you to first go through the [[WP:WIAGA|Good Article criteria]], and resolve any problems you find. After that is done, and the above issues are addressed, please let me know and I will be happy to do a second review. [[User:Wronkiew|Wronkiew]] ([[User talk:Wronkiew|talk]]) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)