User:MagnusY/F* (programming language)/Maia.soderlund Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

MagnusY

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MagnusY/F%2A_%28programming_language%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

F* (programming language)

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead: guided questions:

1. The lead appears to not be updated to reflect the information that is being added, however, I don't necessarily think it is necessary to add much.
2. The lead includes an introductory that helps describe what the article will be talking about.
3. There is information in the lead that I am not finding in the article itself, but because it is a stub class article, there has not been much done and is just starting to develop.
4. The lead, to those who understand this terminology, is concise in its information, providing a brief introduction to the topic.

Content: guided questions:

1. The content added is relevant to the topic and adds more information on what F* programming is. The operators and data types are the two sections being added to this article, being relevant. I personally don't understand a single thing, but that is because I only have a small history with programming.
2. The content that has been added links to a paper that was published in 2024, so it is up-to-date.
3. I believe the content that has been added is needed. Again, I don't know what I am reading, however, maybe some extra insight on what these operators are? I could be going down a completely wrong path with what I am suggesting, but based on an outsider it could be helpful to add additional explanation.

Tone and Balance: guided questions:

1. The content added is neutral.
2. There does not appear to be any biases, the article is well informative on the topic at hand.
3. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented.

Sources and References: guided question:

1. Based off of Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, the source that is provided in the sandbox is considered a tertiary source, which is still acceptable. Maybe providing other sources such as peer-reviewed articles on F* Programming could help strengthen the information you are adding.
2. Because the resource is a textbook, I have no idea where the information you found is located, however, because of the extent of information provided in textbooks, I believe that the information is somewhere in there.
3. Yes, this is a thorough source having a magnitude of information.
4. Because it was published in 2024, it is relevant/ current.
5. This source is written by three people, from what I can tell.
6. Because I don't quite know what to look for, I am unsure if there are other sources available. But based on a quick "F* Programming" search, I did find some articles.
7. Articles found:
   1. https://www.fstar-lang.org/#:~:text=F*%20(pronounced%20F%20star%20),purely%20functional%20and%20effectful%20programming.
   2. I don't know if "F*" and "F" in programming is the same thing but if it is here is this article I found: https://startup-house.com/inventory/f-programming-language
   3. https://project-everest.github.io/
   4. https://schneide.blog/2019/10/07/a-new-star-in-software-verification/

Organization: guided questions:

1. The content is concise, though not clear from an outsiders point-of-view. But because this article is very narrowed down to programming talk, it is acceptable for those who know what they are reading.
2. There appears to be no grammatical or spelling errors.
3. It is well-organized, separated into sections that make sense.

Overall Impressions:

1. I believe this added content helps further develop the article as a whole, providing some additional information on what F* programming operators and date types are.
2. The strengths are the inclusion of additional information on what F* looks like and what it supports.
3. I believe by adding some additional information in these sections "operating" and "data types" would help provide a better understanding. But, again, I have no idea what any of this means as I am not an expert on programming. Maybe adding a few more descriptions under "data types" and explaining what these data types may establish, for instance, bool... what does this look like or what is it necessarily? Going into the details of what these stand for could be helpful to the reader. Also, adding additional resources to help expand the reliability of the information would be helpful! This may add some additional work, as from what I found there is not a lot, but that could be because I wasn't asking the right questions in the search bar. Also, is F* an abbreviation for something, or is it literally just "Functional Programming Language" and is just a shortened version of this?

Overview:

1. Overall, the additions you are making to this article are well established and provide additional information on what F* programming can add. Something that I found intriguing is just the whole idea behind F* programming, I didn't know what it was before this, but, it is interesting to read the background of what it is, though it is confusing to me!
2. The changes I would make are provided under "Overall Impressions" #3. I think these changes would further improve the article with the additional explanation behind "operators" and "data types."
3. I think the most important thing to do is provide additional resources.

I think you are doing great so far! Just adding the additional information would definitely benefit what you have done so far.