User:SladeWillson/Quantum information/Calhin Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * SladeWillson
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:SladeWillson/Quantum information

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Possibly; unclear if beginning section is the lead or not.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not exactly
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * A small amount, yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It appears to be concise and to the point.

Lead evaluation
The lead/introductory area of the edits is well done; there appears to be a good level of clarity and conciseness to it. I would personally switch the first and second sentence, so that it begins with the summary sentence and then specifies the interdisciplinary nature of the field, but that is simply preference.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It appears so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There really is only history provided; I would like to see more such as applications and the actual details of quantum information itself.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
There is not much provided aside from history here, making it difficult to rate the content on a wider spectrum. But the historical content is very useful for what is provided.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Content appears to be entirely balanced and neutral; good job!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There are no linked credible sources provided in this article.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The wording is a little uneasy at certain points, and there are grammatical mistakes which hinder the clarity of the information. It is, however, concise!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, there is a spelling error of the word developed spelled as "developped". There is a grammatical error in the sentence "He, along with others also studied problems in quantum estimations (link wiki article)", where there should be a comma after "others". "In the 1970s" should have a comma after it as well. In "What these studies emphasized the philosophical aspects of measurement rather than a quantitative approach to extracting information via measurements," there should be a "was" after "emphasized. There are multiple other instances of grammatical errors involving commas.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic
 * It is well organized, although rather brief. There is only really history provided in the sandbox, but the history does follow a chronological timeline.

Organization evaluation
I believe everything I had to say on organization fits above. I would suggest the team go back through their work and methodically fix grammar and word mistakes.

Images and Media: N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * 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?

For New Articles Only: N/A
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe so
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Concise, direct information, historical context
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Go back through and edit your work on a technical level, and then maybe add more than history such as applications and equations.

Overall evaluation
Overall, good job!