User:Aannulis/Quantum refereed game/Marcz1001 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Aannulis
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aannulis/Quantum refereed game

Lead
Guiding questions: THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A LEAD SECTION JUST YET, HOWEVER THE CONTENT IS GOOD.


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? YES
 * Is the content added up-to-date? YES
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? NO, seems to concisely but effectively describe quantum refereed games
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? YES
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? NO
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? NO
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? NO

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? YES
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? YES
 * Are the sources current? YES
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? YES

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? YES
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? NO
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? YES

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? YES
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? UNSURE
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? YES
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? NO

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe so, however I think some context or a lead will greatly benefit the reader and help them put this information into context.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Clear description of topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? Add embedded links to help readers like myself fill in gaps in background knowledge. For example, I am not sure what a polynomial time verifier is, and a link to an existing page about it would be helpful.

Overall evaluation
Core content is good, but a lead/intro section would help readers put this article into a broader context, and embedded links would make it easier for readers to understand all of the references made in the article.