This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
Once you save your changes using the "Publish changes" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Comment: The previous review has not been addressed. The article reads like an advertisement. Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Thank you for addressing my comments from earlier! I do believe that the topic may be notable, but I'm afraid the article needs a complete rewrite. A few overarching themes: (1) Please remove further promotional language throughout. For example: "SQC is a full stack technology company building both hardware and software", "The company exploits leading-edge manufacturing technology", and much of the "Technology" section. (2) Much of the text appears to be synthesized from academic papers, much of them published by Simmons. The problem with this is that, besides not demonstrating independently notability, it constitutes possible WP:OR (or insider information) as it's not clear whether this history is more widely known - see for example, "Technical achievements prior to the formation of the company". I took a look at the citation "Spectroscopy of few-electron single-crystal silicon quantum dots" and the article itself does not mention SQM at all. For now, I think the best route is just to remove such details unless there are other, non-primary sources covering the history of the company. (3) The article relies too much on primary sources. Besides the large number of academic sources, currently UNSW, SQC are key sources that are unfortunately primary. To move forward, we need some high-quality independent sources. I did some brief searching and This article could be a good starting point. Caleb Stanford (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment: The references are not formatted correctly. Please clean them up using the citation generator to create them (e.g. URL, website, author, title, date, access-date, etc.)The article is written in a promotional tone: "Silicon Quantum Computing is the only company worldwide that can manufacture quantum processors with atomic precision" Please fix this."Australian Research Council (ARC)" is a red link.Some sentences are missing citations, e.g., "Many competitor businesses pursue “top down” processes, who take already-scaled technologies looking to combine them to make a quantum computer. SQC’s approach is an example of “bottom up” quantum computation. SQC has started with naturally quantum components and processes. ". Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Silicon Quantum Computing Pty Ltd (SQC) is a quantum computing company based in Sydney, Australia. The company develops quantum computers using precision engineered atom qubits in pure silicon, a concept originally proposed by Bruce Kane in 1998. SQC is a full stack technology company[1] aiming to deliver a utility-scale quantum computer by 2033.[1]
Silicon Quantum Computing was founded in May 2017, by 2018 Australian of the Year, Michelle Simmons and is supported by the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, the Commonwealth Government, the Government of NSW and the University of New South Wales.[2]
In 2012 Simmons demonstrated a single atom transistor,[3]the world’s smallest transistor based on the ability to place a single phosphorus atom in silicon with atomic precision.[4] In 2022 SQC announced the world’s first integrated circuit manufactured with atomic precision[5] and used this device to simulate the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model.[6]
Other notable peer-reviewed achievements include: fast (nanosecond) exchange gates,[7] high fidelity (99.95%) single shot read-out,[8] high fidelity initialisation,[9] long coherence times,[10] within a fully crystalline, low noise platform.[11]In February 2025 SQC demonstrated the world’s highest fidelity implementation of Grover’s algorithm without the need for error correction.[12]