User:Oliviazorrilla/Quantum key distribution/Mauryan11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Oliviazorrilla


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oliviazorrilla/Quantum_key_distribution?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Quantum key distribution

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead :

Content :
 * 1) The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by my peers
 * 2) it does include a brief and concise introductory statement, however it could be amended further
 * 3) It does include a brief description of the articles contents
 * 4) No, the article has been updated to incorporate all the information from the lead
 * 5) It is concise but also has the necessary amount of information required
 * 1) The content added is extremely relevant and adds recent developments to the original article that hadn't been implemented yet which is up-to date

Tone and Balance :

The content added is seemingly neutral and no claims appear to be heavily biased or viewpoints that are over or under represented

Sources and references:

The content is all backed up by reliable current sources of information and accurately reflect what is conveyed in the lead. Any diversity in the spectrum of authors is not apparent and neither is the availability of "better" sources. The links seem to be working

Organization:

The content is concise, clear and well-written , and mostly it is easy to digest and understand for the common person. It is well-organized, i.e broken into appropriate sections, and does not seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors

Images and Media:

No images and media were added to be peer-reviewed

Overall Impressions:

The content added definitely improved the main article, mainly due to the fact that it updated the article with current advancements in the technology and explained the differences that the new technology in comparison to the older one and expanded on its theoretical and physical implementation. There is lies the strength of the content added. It also flows extremely well with the information broken down exactly as the main article and seems seamless. The content could perhaps be augmented by further explaining the differences and elaborating on other advancements planned down the line and the timelines associated with those.