Talk:Folding@home/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Journals for possible future citations

The article used to contain a long list of journal references. They were first added by User:Johnnaylor back in February 2008, and now contain almost everything needed in a journal citation. As I have now summarized the key points of some of the important papers, I had to comment the rest out. I haven't been able to include content from all them, because that would involve delving into unnecessary detail. So although they remained commented out at the very end of the article, the artice's byte count seems to include them, and this has been the cause of some confusion/misunderstandings for a couple of Wikipedians already. To alleviate probable future issues, I am moving all of them over here. If there is an publication that contains an important fact or point, feel free to cut and paste it from this section and use it as a citation in the article. Since the information in these journal citations can be a bit tricky to find, I didn't want to waste Johnnaylor's work. Thus here they are:

-Begin commented-out journal list

-End commented-out journal list

Jessemv (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Does the lead need to be simplified?

I received an email today from a fellow Wikipedian who said that that the lead was too technical and should be simplified. He suggested something like the following should be added to the beginning or replace the first lead paragraph: "Folding@home is a distributed computing project at Stanford University which uses unused computing time on hundreds of thousands of home computers and gaming systems to help answer questions about diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and various cancers. Anyone can donate computer time by downloading and installing the free software from the Folding@home website." However, I like the lead the way it is right now, and I feel that it follows WP:MOSINTRO and in general MOS:LEAD fairly well. Rosetta@home is the only article about a distributed computing project to achieve Good or Featured Article status, so it serves as a kind of guideline. R@h's lead describes the distributed computing concept in the first paragraph just like the above suggestion, while F@h describes it in the second paragraph. Should the lead be rewritten similar to the above suggestion? Thoughts? Jesse V. (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the reading level of the lead is about right. It's important to avoid unnecessary jargon and not dive into unnecessary technical depth (especially in the lead), but I think the complexity of this article's introduction is on par with that of other featured articles on technical subjects, e.g. Parallel computing, RNA interference, Rosetta@home, etc. In my opinion the proposed revision to the first paragraph veers too much toward overtly recruiting new Folding@home volunteers. Emw (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks very much. Jesse V. (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)