User:ColeDU/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
Name of article: Quantum teleportation

I've chosen this article because the subject is relevant to the class and we have been specifically talking about it.

Lead

 * The lead includes an introductory sentence which clearly describes the topic, but could maybe be a bit more clear as it is a little long and has a few asides. It describes the many of major ideas of the article, but leaves out a few things like methods and concepts like Bell states. The lead also includes that quantum teleportation has not been achieved between achieved between anything larger than a molecule, but later on in the article tells that quantum teleportation has been achieved over between kilometres. However, it is possible that they mean the qubits involved in quantum teleportation have not been bigger than molecules, but if so this is not very clear. The lead is reasonably concise without having too much detail.

Content

 * The content in the article is relevant and for the most part up to date. It includes a variety of information. From a general overview of the topic to specific descriptions of the underlying mathematical topics. Concepts such as the physical mechanism of quantum teleportation and quantum entailment would be beneficial. Everything has it's place. Nothing sticks out as unrelated.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is Neutral. There seem to be no claims that are opinions. The article mostly talks about results, methods, and the math described concretely without a bias. It does not seem to over emphasis or under emphasis the content involved.

Sources and References

 * There are some facts stated without a linked source. Some paragraphs have no sources at all. Many of the source are from News papers like the New York Times and the Huffington Post and some magazine websites like popular mechanics. While the sources are on topic often news paper and magazine articles are not written by scientists. The articles which presumably have more merit don't have links because the seem to be from books or journals. Some of the source are not current like the one used to claim that quantum teleportation has not been achieved between anything larger than a molecule. There are 48 sources with a large variety of authors. While the links that are present do work they are primarily only available for the seemingly least reliable sources used. This might be unavoidable as, again, the more reliable source seem to be books. It would be good if more academic sources available online were used so confirming the information could be done without access to these books.

Organization

 * The article is fairly well written. I didn't come across any major grammatical or spelling errors. There isn't esoteric or convoluted language. The concepts are described well without being over complicated. For the most part the article is well organised, but one part sticks out. The section "Local Explanation of the Phenomenon" comes at the very end of the article right after some very math heavy sections. I think this would be placed better with the more conceptual descriptions.

Images and Media

 * There are a few images. One of them is of a quantum circuit which is fine, but the others have confusing notation and don't provide much information. The captions are not very detailed and don't tell you much more than what you would call the image or diagram. The images do not appear to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy and their visual appeal is fine. The images are diagrams so there visual appeal is not important compared to there clarity.

Checking the talk page

 * There are conversations about on going edits, some concepts which should be added or expanded. One topic is the question of if the name should be changed from quantum teleportation as it is a misleading name. this article is rated c for quality and high for importance. It is a part of WikiProjects Physics. Wikipedia discusses this topic in terms of right and wrong, where as in our class the discussion is more question based than challenge based. Wikipedia also dwells on the issue of the name more than we do.

Overall impressions

 * Overall the article is pretty good. It doesn't have major inaccuracies and covers many aspects of the topic. The article is strong in that it has the math clearly written in multiple forms. The article could be improved with more source accessible to most readers. I wouldn't call the article complete. There is much more that would be valuable to improve or add, but the article has a lot of good work that should be developed on.