User:Tkout2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Quantum information

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is a basic overview of quantum information, so it is probably the easiest one for me to understand. Studying quantum information is important to the development of technology today, especially in the realms of communication and cryptography. On first impressions, I think this seems to be a good article because quantum information is a broad and widely known topic, and within the first two paragraphs there are already 10 citations. There are many links to find out more information, a decently sized intro, a well-organized layout, mathematical equations, and a long references list.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

The first sentence is just a short definition of quantum information; it is concise and possibly could have been more robust, but it is acceptable. For the most part, the intro does give a brief summary of each section. There is no information in the lead that is not discussed in the article. The lead is a good amount of information, and there is much science to cover, so I think it is overall concise with enough detail.

Content

Yes, all of the content is directly related to the topic. Yes, it is up to date because there is content from 2020, and most of the references are from the past 10 years. I don't know enough about this topic to say anything is missing, and there is plenty of information. Nothing seems out of place. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

Yes, this article is neutral, which is easier to accomplish since this is science. I did not come across any biased claims, and most claims seem well supported by reputable sources. Each section has more or less the same amount of information. This article is not very opinionated and states facts well without value words like "best."

Sources and References

There are 40 citations, so I cannot say all of the facts are backed up well; however, most citations are from reputable journals such as Cambridge University Press. The sources are thorough because most of them seem to be an overview of quantum information. Many sources are from the 1900's; however, because this is an article about a scientific area, that is to be expected. There is a substantial number of sources from the 2000's, with many being from within the past 5-10 years. Just based on last names, the authors do not seem to be too diverse, however many of them are distinguished mathematicians and physicists involved in research. There really aren't many random websites; this article does a good job of using reviewed published papers. Yes, all of the links I tried worked and seem reputable.

Organization and Writing Quality

Yes, the article is well written; it sounds professional without being overly scientific and difficult to understand. It includes many links if you are not familiar with some topics. No, there are no grammatical errors that I have seen. Yes, the sections are clear and make sense; the article follows the typical contents of a scientific topic, starting out with the history, discussing what the topic is, applications, etc.

Images and Media

There is only 1 image and 1 table, which are both well positioned and not in the way of the text. The image does have a caption. Yes, there are a considerable number of images, but not an overloaded amount, and they all have captions and are well-positioned and not in the way of the text. The image is not cited, and although it does have a small link, the link does not work. The table has no citation, so I am not sure if the author made it or not. I think there could have been more images included because the only image there does not really do much to enhance the topic.

Talk Page Discussion

Some of the edits are single-word edits to make the statement 100% correct, such as changing "quantum mechanics studies" to "the field of quantum mechanics." One comment was simply praising the article. Another person changed the link to one of the references. Overall, there were no big changes made or considerable discussions. In class, we go over much more of the math behind quantum information; for example the 5 famous theorems like the no-cloning theorem are just listed in 1 sentence with no example. The page is rated start-class, mid-high importance.

Overall Impressions

The article overall is a good, brief overview of quantum information. I like how it is broken up into history, descriptions, has some equations, and applications, as well as the fact that it is written in an easy to understand language for a seemingly difficult topic. However, the page is lacking in images and visual ways to comprehend the information. I understand that the author probably wants to direct the reader to the other wikipedia pages about specific topics like quantum error detection, but having some visual elements helps with the overall appearance of the page. Because the article is just an overview, it cannot be too robust, so it is acceptably developed. It does have a decent sized intro, looks well laid out, no grammatical errors, and is neatly broken up into sections.