User:Jnmasur/Quantum Artificial Life/Mcatalano26 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? (provide username)
 * Jnmasur
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Jnmasur/Quantum Artificial Life

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There was not an article previously, so yes it has been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a sentence about this but I believe that it could be made a bit clearer. It is a very complex topic, and I still don't fully understand it after reading through the article. Spending more time on the topic early on would be helpful.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does. This could be written better (although it looks like this area of the lead is intended to be worked on after future work has been completed)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The overall description of quantum artificial life is included in the lead but is not included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation
It appears that this is a section that you all are aware needs some work. At the moment, it is a bit all over the place, but I think you are just using this section to brainstorm ideas at the moment. I can see the potential for it and think it will be fine once more work is put into it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Content is definitely relevant to the topic. Nearly the full lifecycle of quantum artificial life is discussed
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The main work that they are pulling from is an article about quantum artificial life in an IBM quantum computer that was published in 2018 so it is pretty up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the content that is on the page feels as though it belongs, but I feel like there should be a discussion of artificial life simulated on different types of technology before going into quantum. This could just help get a scope of the idea as well as give the reader some history on the topic.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
Content is overall good. Everything that exists is relevant and well-written. More detail needs to go into the environment and death sections. The Latex-style mathematical formulas are a nice touch that help the reader a lot. I think that if you flesh out the environment and death sections, and add in a history of artificial life (prior technologies, failed experiments, etc.) this article would be really good.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Content is neutral. I do not feel persuaded one way or another about quantum artificial life.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Bias does not appear to be seen in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is an overrepresentation of IBM-implemented artificial life. I recognize that this is the only group that has actualized artificial life on quantum computers, but if there are other attempts at this, you should definitely touch on them.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Does not appear to try and persuade one way or another.

Tone and balance evaluation
As far as bias and neutrality, I believe that this is a very neutral and unbiased sandbox. However, as I mentioned above, because you only focus on the implementation by Alvarez-Rodriguez et al. there must be some underrepresented scientists who have experimented with this topic. It would do the article justice to talk about other experiments into quantum artificial life even if they were failures.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Not all new content. Sources need to be added especially in the interactions section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources that are used are thorough
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not all sources are current, but I don't believe this is a bad thing. There is one article cited from 1818 where I believe the goal is to talk a little bit about the history behind this topic before the article gets more into the technicality. I think this would be good.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * It appears that a diverse spectrum of authors is used
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Sources that are used look good. Mostly scientific journals which is important for credibility. As I mention above, however, the interactions section especially needs more sources. Additionally, when the environment and death sections are expanded, more sources will be needed there.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The lead section is not easy to read. I think this will be fixed in the future as it looks like you guys know that this section isn't ironed out yet. Other than that, it felt easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Again, the lead section is the only section where I noticed some funky grammar. Everywhere else the grammar looked good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I like the way this is organized overall. The lifecycle going from self-replication to interactions to death is good. However, I think that once the environment section is filled in, it should go at the beginning. I think that this would give some context to the rest of the sections. Additionally, as I have said in earlier critiques, I think that a history section would be an interesting addition as well as talking about other people who have experimented with this technology.

Organization evaluation
I like the way that it is organized overall. I think that environment should go at the top after it is filled in more. Nothing more to say other than what I have answered in the above questions^

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
No images or media to evaluate.

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?
 * 2-3 secondary sources are not shown in the bibliography. It could be nice to include a section about where quantum artificial life shows up and why it is an interesting concept to explore. This could help to demonstrate the notability of the topic.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I think that there would definitely be more sources you could find to more accurately represent all literature on the subject. I think you guys are on your way to getting these sources, however.
 * 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?
 * No infoboxes or anything like that, but I don't think that that is really a requirement for this class.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

New Article Evaluation
I think that, as a new article, this is really good as a start. It effectively walks through the lifecycle of quantum artificial life. As I mention in my answer above, it might be good also to include a section about where quantum artificial life is relevant. What other fields does it (or could it) affect, and what is the benefit of learning more about this topic? This would prove the notability of the subject matter.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There was no article before, so this is absolutely better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I liked the organization and thought that the section on self-replication was fleshed out well.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More relevant sources can be added, the environment and death section can be filled in, the lead section needs to be cleaned up, historical context needs to be included, other experimentation with the subject should be touched on (work other than Alvarez-Rodriguez), and maybe include a relevance section that talks about why quantum artificial intelligence is important.

Overall evaluation
I think that what you guys have is a really good start. Looks like you know what you need to add, already, too. More sources need to be included in the interaction section. The environment and death section need to be filled in, and I believe that the environment section should be put at the very beginning to provide context to the other sections. I also think that before everything, you could discuss some historical context on artificial life. This could include artificial life on classical computers (look into genetic algorithms possibly), failed attempts at creating artificial life on quantum computers, and maybe a look into when the theory of this idea started too. Lastly, I think that since this is a new article, you could include a relevance section on the topic. This could talk about why quantum artificial life is important, what other fields of science it shows up in, what fields it could have an affect on, etc. Basically, just a section on why the everyday person should care about this topic.

Overall, however, I think this is article is great for where we are in the semester. I like the structure following the life cycle, and if all the sections become as fleshed out as the self-replication section, I think it will be a really good article!