User:Mcatalano26/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.


 * Name of article: Quantum computing
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because quantum computing is a very relevant topic to the class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * A bit too detailed but not too much

Lead evaluation
Generally an acceptable lead although it could add in a description of the article's major sections and could be cut back a bit in terms of content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * It was last edited 2 days ago, so yes I would say it is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It looks like it has a good amount of content
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, it does not

Content evaluation
Looks like very quality content

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is very neutral, everything is backed with science.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article looks fairly unbiased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No...the article is a good summation of the field without over and underrepresenting anything
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Very scientific tone, which is great for neutrality.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are 81 references, additional resources, textbooks, external links, and lectures linked in the bibliography. All facts are backed up
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they do
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not all the sources are current. Some of the textbooks linked are relatively old (90s)
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They do not appear to include historically marginalized authors, unfortunately
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Overall good sources and references although some of the textbooks and journals referenced are a bit dated.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is a bit confusing. It is hard to read without a background in quantum computation.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors that I could find
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Article is very well-organized

Organization evaluation
The only problem with the organization is the confusing wording of many sections. Unfortunately, with a topic as complicated as quantum computing, the article was undoubtedly going to be a little bit confusing.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there are not many images
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The few images are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * It appears that they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * As mentioned before, there are not many images. Therefore, they are not really laid out in any visually appealing way

Images and media evaluation
Not enough images to help with comprehension.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are lots of conversations happening in the talk page. Most of them are trying to be very helpful and make the page the best that it can be.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated B-class. It is a part of 5 wikiprojects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia is going more in-depth than we do in class.

Talk page evaluation
Appears to be a very good talk page

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Article's overall status is good, but it could definitely be improved
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Strengths are that it talks professional, neutrally, and scientifically.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Article could be improved by adding in more modern references and sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess the article as a bit underdeveloped. New sources need to be added to fully develop it.

Overall evaluation
Overall good article with some important improvements that need to be made.

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: