User:Ks446/Hayden-Preskill thought experiment/Skyhawk g650 Peer Review

Peer review
See the peer review below:

General info

 * User:Ks446
 * Drafts: User:Ks446/Hayden-Preskill thought experiment & Hayden-Preskill thought experiment

Lead
Overall, the lead section is good but could be expanded in some areas. First, it would be helpful to either link in or further explain topics such as "entanglement" or a "k qubit quantum state." Many readers are unfamiliar with these topics and would not know where to look for further information. Second, the topic is explained well; however, the lead fails to address the significance of the theory. Why is this an important topic in Physics? What could exploring this theory provide humanity: expanded knowledge of the universe, real-world applications, or nothing? Could this theory lead to future developments in quantum information science? Lastly, just a few grammar issues and sentences that could be re-written. Other than those things, the lead sentence is clear and concise, and everything flows well.

Content
All of the added content in the sandbox is relevant and up-to-date. However, the content is very technical and relies on a lot of complex topics from physics and mathematics. The writer did a good job linking in sources where necessary, but many readers could find it necessary to reference multiple outside sources just to read a single sentence. The section on "decoding protocols" could be broken down into general conceptual ideas with detailed explanations rather than relying on mathematics to explain a concept. A lot of the sentences could use additional sentences to explain concepts in an easier to understand way.

Tone and Balance
Article tone and balance presents no problems.

Sources and References
Sources are reliable and correctly cited. However, each paragraph relies solely on one specific source, and it is evident that the content flows in accordance with that cited source. It would benefit the article's credibility if you took information for each topic from a range of sources to construct an article that does not mirror that of your sources. For example, the entire section on "decoding protocols" relies solely on a single source. This section is then merely a reinstatement of another author's work and does not constitute a new creation. It would help to research the topic from a range of sources, and then write an original work and cite those sources where necessary.

Organization
The sandbox content received a Grammarly score of 66/100. Frequent grammar issues exist throughout, such as passive voice, unclear sentences, capitalization, verb form agreement, spelling, punctuation, numbers that need to be written out, etc. Many sentences need to be re-written in a way that is clear and concise. Number 0-9 are spelled out in writing, not written as a number. The article contains frequent use of "you" and other personal pronouns that are forbidden in academic writing. Sentences should not start with "This" as that word is an unclear antecedent. Many double worded adjectives need hyphens in between.

Overall impressions
Overall the sections added so improve the quality of the article. The content could be improved by further explaining the significance of the topic. Typically, topics will not become noteworthy unless they are significant for either research or engineering applications. Explaining the significance of the topic would go a long way to make the article more credible and relevant.