User:Lucluc97/Quantum technology/21percent Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lucluc97 and group


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_technology&oldid=1125808987
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Quantum technology

Lead
Nothing was added to the lead of the article, which I guess is fair as the added part was simulations, which is already in the lead. I would link it however, as it is also linked in the subsection.

Content
Great job on covering a lot of different quantum technologies in the table. Only thing I would add is the last "See Also" part of the article. It does not really seem related to the parts that you added, and if we say it is, why is there only three? I think you should either remove it or add more.

Tone and Balance
I think very good. It was kind of hard to tell since most of the edits were the table though.

Sources[edit]
I think pretty good, just a couple I found was not cited.


 * 1) Japan - Quantum Technology Innovation Strategy
 * 2) Japan - Quantum Strategic Industry Alliance for Revolution (Q-STAR)
 * 3) China - Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Quantum Information and Quantum Physics

This is just to name a few. I think you should go through table again and check them all.

Organization
Table very good

Images/ Media
N/A

Overall Impressions

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything in the article was relevant to the topic, it described the topic, and showed examples of it. Nothing really distracted, all were to the point, well organized.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Very neutral, no claims or opinions.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There were not any viewpoints I saw, just seemed like a list of quantum technologies, with added info of quantum simulations
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * I think so! There were alot of citations, most probably from the big table that was made
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Seems good to me!

'Overall I think this was a good article. There was an added portion of quantum simulations, and then a big table of all the different quantum technologies. It is obvious a lot of work was put into the data to provide the user with such a plethora of information on these different quantum technologies. I think I would've liked to see more talk about the different types of quantum technologies, as only 4 were discussed in the article.'