User:Ryankosson/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 imaging
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. In terms of quantum information technology, my knowledge is most extensive in the fields of quantum optics. Quantum imaging is a subfield of quantum optics so this article felt like a natural fit. Additionally, quantum imaging is a topic that I know less about and am excited to learn more about. Finally, I feel that there is significant room for improvement on this page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an effective introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead talks about real world applications but does not allude specifically to a distinction between these applications and actual current uses. The lead introduces and addresses several methods for imaging but namely introduces sub-shot-noise imaging and never really explains what that entails. The lead is appropriately concise.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes the content is relevant to the topic. I feel the real world applications section could be updated and the current uses only includes ghost imaging. There is no explanation of sub-shot-noise imaging in real world applications and current uses should include more than ghost imaging. Also the methods introduce two main processes by which imaging occurs but never assigns these processes to the addressed methods. Also the article never specifically addresses whether or not other processes are commonly applied. The article does not specifically address an underrepresented population, however, the field discussed historically and currently lacks diversity.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. No viewpoints are specifically over represented however certain topics are as aforementioned. This all holds true expect the references to military applications seem to be a little overstated. That is, however, the nature of funding for applied physics. No the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

All facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source. The sources are current and the links do work. No historically marginalized individuals are specifically referenced, however, there is no real appropriate time to do so.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well-written, has no obvious grammatical errors and is well organized.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article completely lacks images which could enhance the readers understanding of the topic.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The article is not spoken about much other than to say the article could be lengthened. The article is rated start class. The article is a part of the wikiproject physics.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article has a very strong start but can definitely be improved upon. Methodology should be more extensive and needs to include sub-shot-noise. Real world applications should be extended to cover all methods. Also the article should include pictures. This article is under developed.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: