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)
- Mcataloano26, Ctaitz
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- The lead has not been updated. The existing lead is very detailed. Make sure everything inside the lead is relevant and necessary, and not covered multiple times in the article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it clearly defines what quantum supremacy is.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes it does. Make sure to add any necessary information to the lead. (Traveling salesmen problem)
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- There are a lot of specifics in the lead. There are a lot of dates and statements from reports/magazines/articles that need to be either updated or added on to. Are the any new sources/ reports?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- There is a lot of detail. Is it possible to break the article into additional sections in order to shorten the lead?
Lead evaluation
Good lead that clearly defines what quantum supremacy is. Make sure that all the information is current and relevant. Make sure that information added is then represented in the lead. Check quotes and dates, add more if there are more recent updates in the field.
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content is relevant. Much of the information is already present in the Quantum Supremacy wikipedia page. Some good additions.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, content is up to date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Expanded on two existing sections. Good addition of the traveling salesmen problem
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No, the article is focused on the topic assigned.
Content evaluation
Content is absolutely relevant. Very detailed, but lack of sources. Make sure to support the information with more than just 1-2 sources. Make sure the information is correct by cross-referencing info from other sources.
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, there doesn't appear to be any bias. The article does not share the authors views on quantum computing abilities.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- "The Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) is one such problem that could easily display the supremacy of quantum technology over that of classical technology." Maybe remove the term easily. This problem displays supremacy, but "easily" is subjective.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Very detailed section on complexity, with very small sections on skepticism and critics of the name. Maybe add, or remove these sections. Is criticism for the name and skepticism necessary/ both require their own section?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the added sections provide additional information without showing bias.
Tone and balance evaluation
Pretty good. Overall don't see any bias persuading the reader to see one viewpoint over the other.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes but it seems like it is all from one or two sections. Make sure to add more citations to support the facts.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources present appear to be reliable and current.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- No, there are limited sources with a majority of the information coming from one source. Diversify the sources.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
Add more references for the complexity section. While it is very detailed, it is hard to believe that all this information is only represented in a few articles/papers. Find supporting information to back up claims.
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The complexity section is a lot to read. It is hard to read large paragraphs on complex topics without pictures or supporting charts/examples.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, grammar is good.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the traveling salesmen section is written well and a good length. It gives the reader a good understanding of the problem.
Organization evaluation
Good organization. Computational complexity section is very detailed and can be hard to read through for the average reader. Try breaking apart the work and adding graphics to help explain the claims present in the section.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No, I think this could be a really useful area. Especially for such a tough topic, pictures of how a quantum computer actually works may help the average reader.
- Are images well-captioned?
- No pictures.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No pictures
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No pictures
Images and media evaluation
Add pictures or graphs to demonstrate how quantum supremacy works and is possible. It becomes difficult and boring to read a long wikipedia page with all text. Especially for difficult topics, readers will struggle to understand the topic without supporting graphics.
For New Articles Only
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?
New Article Evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, i think it has. Just make sure to support all the information with more sources.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Great addition for proposed experiments
- How can the content added be improved?
- break down the paragraphs, add pictures, add more citations
Overall evaluation
Good additions, main points are to add more supporting information from sources. Also, the article would really benefit from images and graphics helping to support the claims in the article.
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)
- Mcataloano26, Ctaitz
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- The lead has not been updated. The existing lead is very detailed. Make sure everything inside the lead is relevant and necessary, and not covered multiple times in the article.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, it clearly defines what quantum supremacy is.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes it does. Make sure to add any necessary information to the lead. (Traveling salesmen problem)
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- There are a lot of specifics in the lead. There are a lot of dates and statements from reports/magazines/articles that need to be either updated or added on to. Are the any new sources/ reports?
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- There is a lot of detail. Is it possible to break the article into additional sections in order to shorten the lead?
Lead evaluation
Good lead that clearly defines what quantum supremacy is. Make sure that all the information is current and relevant. Make sure that information added is then represented in the lead. Check quotes and dates, add more if there are more recent updates in the field.
Content
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content is relevant. Much of the information is already present in the Quantum Supremacy wikipedia page. Some good additions.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, content is up to date
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Expanded on two existing sections. Good addition of the traveling salesmen problem
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- No, the article is focused on the topic assigned.
Content evaluation
Content is absolutely relevant. Very detailed, but lack of sources. Make sure to support the information with more than just 1-2 sources. Make sure the information is correct by cross-referencing info from other sources.
Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, there doesn't appear to be any bias. The article does not share the authors views on quantum computing abilities.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- "The Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) is one such problem that could easily display the supremacy of quantum technology over that of classical technology." Maybe remove the term easily. This problem displays supremacy, but "easily" is subjective.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Very detailed section on complexity, with very small sections on skepticism and critics of the name. Maybe add, or remove these sections. Is criticism for the name and skepticism necessary/ both require their own section?
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the added sections provide additional information without showing bias.
Tone and balance evaluation
Pretty good. Overall don't see any bias persuading the reader to see one viewpoint over the other.
Sources and References
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes but it seems like it is all from one or two sections. Make sure to add more citations to support the facts.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources present appear to be reliable and current.
- Are the sources current?
- Yes
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- No, there are limited sources with a majority of the information coming from one source. Diversify the sources.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes.
Sources and references evaluation
Add more references for the complexity section. While it is very detailed, it is hard to believe that all this information is only represented in a few articles/papers. Find supporting information to back up claims.
Organization
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The complexity section is a lot to read. It is hard to read large paragraphs on complex topics without pictures or supporting charts/examples.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, grammar is good.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the traveling salesmen section is written well and a good length. It gives the reader a good understanding of the problem.
Organization evaluation
Good organization. Computational complexity section is very detailed and can be hard to read through for the average reader. Try breaking apart the work and adding graphics to help explain the claims present in the section.
Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No, I think this could be a really useful area. Especially for such a tough topic, pictures of how a quantum computer actually works may help the average reader.
- Are images well-captioned?
- No pictures.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No pictures
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No pictures
Images and media evaluation
Add pictures or graphs to demonstrate how quantum supremacy works and is possible. It becomes difficult and boring to read a long wikipedia page with all text. Especially for difficult topics, readers will struggle to understand the topic without supporting graphics.
For New Articles Only
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?
New Article Evaluation
Overall impressions
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- Yes, i think it has. Just make sure to support all the information with more sources.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- Great addition for proposed experiments
- How can the content added be improved?
- break down the paragraphs, add pictures, add more citations
Overall evaluation
Good additions, main points are to add more supporting information from sources. Also, the article would really benefit from images and graphics helping to support the claims in the article.