Talk:Structure validation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics

This page is now under construction, and would welcome edits. After discussion, it has been named just "Structure validation", with a redirect from "Macromolecular structure validation". Dcrjsr (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Readability

I strongly recommend the writers read Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and then write the lead and introduction for a broader audience. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lead in an attempt to make it more readable. I tried to change the content as little as possible, with one exception. I was very skeptical of the claim that large numbers of parameters made validation easier. Quite the reverse, I would expect. Validation probably works because crystallography and NMR are sensitive to very different physical parameters. Is that correct? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the quick look and prompt action! Actually, altho joint methods are coming along, nearly all such models are derived from just one of the experimental techniques. I should have said that millions of individual observations, rather than parameters, make it possible - because there are rules that govern their consistency with each other, as well as between them and the coordinates, and between the coordinates and our knowledge of physics and chemistry. I'll try to reword that first paragraph a bit further, to get it correct but keep the good changes you've made to clarity, shorter sentences, etc. Dcrjsr (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I suspected that I didn't know the whole story, but it seemed worth having a first try at it. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation template

The explanation of my recent edit may not make sense, so I'll explain it here: The template {{harvnb}} is very handy for compacting repeated references. You put the reference down between {{Refbegin}} and {{Refend}} and insert |ref=harv. Then when you click on a citation like Rupp 2009, it takes you down to the full reference. The syntax takes a little getting used to though. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the best I could with the edit conflict, and I think actually nothing got lost from your reformatting (please check on that). I like the 2-column ref list and the neat way of doing the chapter 13 note. I presume that either one puts the complete reference info in the Refbegin and Refend section (if it'll need the harv functionality), or else just in its first citation (as I was doing before)?

It's probably a good idea to use full first names for the book authors, but for journal articles I'd really rather stick with the concise "Engh RA, Huber R, ..." style in one list, because there will be quite a lot of refs in here with many, many authors (like the current Read et al with 17! Is that OK with you? Dcrjsr (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]