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

Revision as of 22:30, 19 February 2009

Latest revision as of 17:36, 30 September 2024

(2 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.