User:Gblair13/Flux qubit/NJSavino 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? Gblair13 and Lucieamidon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gblair13/Flux qubit

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Some initial thoughts have been bulleted in the sandbox. The article already has a well put together introduction, however it contains some things that are highly specialized and could be explained a bit better such that anyone with a physics background could understand it. It has not been updated to reflect the information being added.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added 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
In general, the proposed content additions appear to be useful in expanding upon this article, but more details are needed before a fair judgement can be made regarding their quality. The content would fit into the scope of this article, but I am unsure where the content will do in the article. It is also unclear how the content will be presented in the article. More details are needed in the sandbox. Citations are also needed.

More specifically:

I think it would be good to add content about nanofab and nanodevices. The initial article does not many sources about that and the explanation is quiet general. It would be beneficial to explain applications of flux qubits and how they can be used in science.

There is already a page in wikipedia that derives 1D quantum conductance, so it would make more sense to link that article rather than derive it in this article. However, if quantum conductance can be connected to this article, that would certainly add to it.

There is also already a page on wikipedia about Josephson junctions. It may be useful to explain them more in this article, since this article seems to assume the reader knows what Josephson junctions are, but it is also important to recognize that a reader can go to the other page for a more in depth understanding of that topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
There does not appear to be any bias in these proposed edits. In the original article, there seems to be a heavy focus on three different people's work in this field (in the Readout section). This should be looked into, are there other people who are doing similar work, why are these research groups featured?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content 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
References are needed. There are no references provided in the sandbox.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content needs to be more fully explained. It is not clear where different edits will go in the article. The details of some of the edits are also unclear.

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


 * 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
N/A

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
More work needs to be done to expand upon the ideas in the sandbox draft. Some of the ideas for additions seem necessary. The original article is lacking sources and makes a lot of claims without citations. The last couple paragraphs of the readout section in the original article look as though they could be reworked. I like the idea of explaining more about nanofab and applications with nanodevices.

Once you all add more details about what will be added to the article, I can provide more feedback; I'll check back in a few days.