Talk:Rosetta@home/GA1
GA Review
Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. The article seems to be very well written. However, there are a few problems I notice. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:EL there are not supposed to be any external links in the article. This article has quite a few. These need to be converted into citations using a consistent format.
- Done. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Is this a reliable source: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2431&nowrap=true#40756? It seems to be a messageboard or a forum.
- While forums are typically unacceptable sources, I've decided to include posts from Rosetta@home scientists and moderators because they offer reliable information that doesn't seem to be available elsewhere. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- This paragraph is a little confusing:
In early 2008, Rosetta was used to computationally design a protein with a function never before observed in nature.[20] This was inspired in part by the retraction of a high-profile paper from 2004 which originally described the computational design of a protein with improved enzymatic activity compared to its natural form.[21] The research paper, which cited Rosetta@home for the computational resources it made available, represented an important proof of concept for this protein design method, and could have future applications in drug discovery, green chemistry, and bioremediation.
- Does the "research paper, which cited Rosetta@home for the computational resources it made available" refer to the high-profile paper from 2004 that was retracted?
- I've attempted to clarify the usage -- thanks for pointing that out. The fix should take care of this point and the preceding one. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Rosetta made history by being the first to produce a close to atomic level resolution, ab initio prediction in its submitted model for CASP target T0281." This statement appears not to be cited.
- The section Folding@home does not have any citations.
- You have done an excellent work on this article. One more thing, if possible, I notice that you use cite xxx for almost all references but a few you did not format that way and they do not have access dates. References should be consistently formatted.