User:Jamesonoreilly/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Evaluating the article for quantum Turing machine:

What structurally is the lead section of this article is more of a compilation of random theoretical results related quantum Turing machines. It is not a good lead for the rest of the article as it only contains things that are never mentioned again and does not mention anything that is in the body of the article. Admittedly, this is because the body of the article is very short, containing only one definition. On the bright side, each of the facts asserted in the lead have a working link to a respectable source. They should be expanded upon in the body and the lead should be condensed to give an overview of only the most important information.

There is no specific reference given for the definition section of the article, which must be pulled from somewhere. Given that it is such a basic definition for the field, there are many different sources that it could be taken from so one must be given credit. This section also mentions that the definition it gives is incomplete. At the very least, it should point the reader towards somewhere that fills in what the article leaves out. Ideally, of course, the article itself would address all of these issues.

It's odd that all of the lead paragraphs are framed by who made each contribution. Listing who established each fact is appropriate in a history section but generally does not matter unless there are special circumstances. Just citing them when stating the fact is enough. That being said, a history section is not out of the question for this article. Some of this is already done in the lead and just needs to be expanded. The article for the classical Turing machine contains a lengthy history section.

That article also contains other sections that could be relevant to add to the quantum version, such as an informal description, relation to physical systems, details for implementation, and different types. Again, some of this is touched upon in the current lead section but never expanded upon.

Besides constantly mentioning the names of the researchers, the writing in this article is very encyclopedic. Granted, there is not very much writing, but it is very neutral and has a good mixture of technical details and simpler explanations.

The only things on the talk page are someone saying that they are going to redirect a different article to this one and someone asking for a QTM definition to be added, along with someone replying to say that they did. This is not a very active page, which helps to explain why it is so short.