User:Jvalle58/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I have decided to evaluate an article on the Python programming language. Python (programming language)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Python is my primary language to code with and analyze data, so I wanted to check out how Wikipedia describes its basic foundations. This would be especially important for amateur coders or computer users who are interested in pursuing coding as part of their work later. My first impression was focused on its "History" section, which I think did a very good job introducing the reader to Python's early development. The "Popularity" section likewise helps buoy the reader's impression of how useful a language it is compared to others like C++, Java, and R.

Evaluate the article
In my view, the most useful section for the reader is the "Syntax and semantics" one, as this lists an array of basic statements that can be used to code. While this cannot substitute the official Python website's documentation on coding, it is a convenient reference for the reader under time constraints. Statements that are referenced in that section include "if" (for writing conditional statements), "for" (for looping over a block of code), and "import" (for extracting software libraries that would be helpful for data analysis). This is followed by a "Expressions" subsection that demonstrates with some examples how to use these statements and select the proper type of characters along the way. For a list of compatible platforms, the "Development environments" section includes a link redirecting to a larger article listing all of the environments suitable for coding with Python.

For a more broad overview of what applications would be best with Python, the article has also included a "Uses" section, which is preceded by "Popularity" to elaborate its extent toward users. However, while some of the companies referred to under "Popularity" (including Google and Facebook) are cited for frequently coding with Python, others are not (Wikipedia and Amazon), which could be problematic if left unattended too long. That being said, other citations pointing toward surveys relating back to user preferences on different coding languages were included, which strengthens the rest of the section more.

Outside of that, I didn't pick up any notable breaches of neutrality throughout the rest of the article. Checking on the bottom, there are quite a plethora of working references to back up its verifiability. Some of these redirect to Python's documentation guides. As an additional convenience, while examining the top sidebar on the right-hand side, it looks like the article is up-to-date, as it includes alongside the "Stable release" note Python's most recent version (3.9.7), as well as the date as to when it was released.