Jump to content

Talk:Folding@home/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Folding@home
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jesse V. (talk | contribs) at 01:52, 21 June 2012 (archiving todo list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 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)

The To-do list

Tasks that are on my to-do list for this article. At the moment I do not have time to complete them, but I will next month. However, since Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and strives to be open, I felt that I should quickly jot down the things that I plan on focusing on next.

 Done I'm fairly satisfied by my choice of citations and I think I'm striking a good balance between third party positions and the details from primary sources. I've also strived to apply journal citations and reduce forum citations as much as possible. If there's problems with this during GA review or something then I'll try to fix it, but for now I think I'm doing fine. Jesse V. (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Remove citations covering well-known statements. There are a few of these in the article, and they don't need a citation since they either are common knowledge or come from another article. This particularly applies to the Biomedical Significance section.
The ones I was thinking of are now  Done Jesse V. (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Ensure that present-tense statements are backed by some sort of year. After further reflection and review of policy I realized that statements like "Folding@home is simulating X" should instead be better said as "In year XXXX, Folding@home simulated X" where appropriate. This way the statement stays true over the years, even when F@h has completed its work on that particular protein. Just want to make sure that such changes don't detract from readability.
 Done Jesse V. (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Run this article by a few experts on the subject. I'm thankful to User:Emw for his proof-reading skills, and I'm hoping for more of the same from him or from others. Then I need to run this by one of the Folding@home experts/leaders to ensure that the article is accurate and doesn't leave out a significant statement or something. Through this process, I will essentially ensure that the article will adhere to Wikipedia policy and will also be accurate, which should make the GA nomination much easier and less stressful.
 In progress
Now  Done
Following his valued copyediting, Emw's approval
After some wording tweaks, Danno uk said that "it's looking pretty good" and "well structured and reffed, and considering the fairly dense subject maintains good readability" diff
Johnnaylor, the primary editor before I started my work, "could not find anything wrong with it" and nominated it for GA
  • Reviews from F@h scientists:
"... I took a quick look and I didn't have anything to add." - Dr. Pande
"This looks extremely well done.... On a first pass, I don't see any problems." - Dr. Bowman
  • Archive much of this Talk page. Probably every topic that has a last reply a year or more ago should go to a new page Archive 2. Discussions which have gone inactive for this long are probably obsolete and I expect no real objection to moving them to archives. I plan on doing this via the Move Procedure, outlined here: Help:Archiving a talk page#Move procedure since it seems to have the most benefits over other methods.
 Done Thanks to User:Wwood's efforts in setting up a bot to do it. Jesse V. (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove explanations of what the WU identification numbers mean. Not only is the source of the current explanation inadequate, but there doesn't seem to be an easy definition. (citation) To avoid going into unnecessary detail and getting pretty technical, I'm electing that an explanation of this be avoided, so I will be shortly removing it.
 Done Jesse V. (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Continue honing the article by removing unnecessary details or information that isn't directly supported. For example, the statement "In 2005, Pande presented results from FAH at a National Parkinson Foundation conference" is covered by a citation from the website rather than one from the NPF. We need to scan through and look for more of these. They should be either removed or covered by more appropriate citations. Hopefully this doesn't conflict too much with the "use secondary sources" idea, but if the statement is relevant it certainly needs to be backed by a source that has more information.
Pretty much  Done Jesse V. (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I fully plan on completing these myself, but thought I'd put them out there just in case someone else wanted to chip in. Busy, Jesse V. (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The Refinement Checklist:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Folding@home/Archive_3&oldid=498592676"