User:Dpinzon30/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Quantum Neural Networks
 * Quantum Neural Networks (QNN's) offer very promising improvements to established methods for machine learning, amongst other technologies. Additionally, the relevance of many of the quantum principles that need to be taken into account when working with QNN's to the concepts covered in our class led me to choose this article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead gives a concise summary of QNN's while also explaining their importance and impact. That being said, the lead focuses more on introducing the history of QNN's and includes information that isn't covered in the rest of the article. Instead, it should introduce the topic, outline the sections of the article, and then cover the history of QNN's in a separate section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article covers a good range of examples of QNN's, however it doesn't go in depth into any one example. Additionally, the lead makes mention of the importance of training QNN's, but there is little discussion of actual training methods. While this article doesn't deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, it is a relatively under-researched field and thus there isn't much information missing in this regard. Ultimately, the content appears to be up-to-date, but the topics covered in the article can all be expanded on.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article conveys a neutral tone. While there is mention of quantum mind theory, which seems to build off pseudoscientific movements, it's brought up for context into the history of QNN's, and the author ultimately covers the information in an unbiased manor.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

Sources and references evaluation
As stated, the author does a good job of keeping the discussion fact-based, and cites all of his information, linking other wikipedia articles where possible. The sources used are all relevant to the information covered, though more up-to-date research can be used when expanding on the information provided. While one of the sources cited isn't linked, all of the sources are cited properly and their respective articles can be found.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content covered is organized well and stated in a concise manner. That being said, a greater effort can be made to make the information more accessible by breaking down concepts covered in an easy-to-understand manner.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images are included in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Limited edits and comments have been made in recent years. Of the information that remains, no flags have been raised, though a section discussing Biological QNN's seemed to be removed given its ties to pseudoscientific movements. This article is a relevant to a handful of WikiProjects, though they range from low to mid importance. Few comments and discussions have been made concerning the content of the article as a majority of the edits have been concerning sources cited.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
As stated, the article does a good hob of organizing the information it covers. It effectively lays a solid foundation for understanding QNN's, though its content can be greatly expanded. In addition to exploring sections covered and mentioned in further detail, the article can be more accessible by including images and further explaining concepts in an easy-to-understand manner. Ultimately, the article seems underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: