Talk:Folding@home/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 22:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Status
This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below.

Discussion
Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).
 * 1) 1a1: I think I've addressed this now. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) 1a2: This should be addressed as well. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) 1a3: The exact phrase in the publication is "We created MSMs based on molecular dynamics simulations of a fast-folding double-norleucine HP35 mutant, extending prior calculations to include more than 1 ms of simulation and requiring more than 10 million CPU hours of computation." Since it also says "Folding@Home donors provided computer resources", I think its reasonable to assume that the calculations were run on a broad range of hardware and that measurement is simply the sum of everyone's CPU time. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) *The problem is that this article will still be there in, say, 2050; I think we may safely assume that by then 10 million CPU hours would be an amount of computation that would be ways greater then the author of this quote was thinking of. Thus at least year should be specified. Eg. "that overall require more than 10 million CPU hours ". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That does make sense. But the year is already in the sentence, and that should take care of that clarification. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 1a4: I think its important to specify which protein. An expert reading this article will probably be familiar which the chemical properties of that protein, but I don't. There's no Wikipedia article on NTL9. The name is so small IMO there's hardly a readability difference between "the NTL9 protein" and "a protein" but I can remove the name if you think that's important. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *Probably an explanatory note about this protein would do. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I added some notes based on the limited information on it provided from the publication. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 1a5: I added the qualifier "can", which I think also fixed the grammar issue. Molecular interventions are things like drugs, antibiotics, etc. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I get it, therapeutic intervention is an action, thus it can take form of some action (molecular intervention in this case). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh. I see now. Should be better now. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 1a6: Better? Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) 1a7: Thanks for catching that. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) 1a8: Clarified. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) 1a9: I made an initial stab at clarifying the difference, and put the explanation above any mention of "native FLOPS". Removing this native FLOP measurement would obliterate the info in the PetaFLOPS Milestone section, almost all of which is based on native FLOPS before x86 FLOPS were displayed. I've seen nothing to indicate that summing the native FLOPS is particular bad, only that there's a difference between the two measurements. I personally don't see this as a big deal, but please let me know if there's something further I need to fix/clarify here. Jesse V. (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) *Well, I dismiss this issue, as the accurate information is unverifiable. Hope some improvements can come in future. For the record: when the text says total of native petaFLOPS is 5.7, and in x86 petaFLOPS it is 8, this means that replacing all x86 units with PS unit with equal native petaFLOPS performance will result in no changes in native petaFLOPS and large increase in x86 petaFLOPS. That specifically means that one of this measurement system, namely native petaFLOPS is widely inaccurate. That's why "[b]y reporting both, Folding@home attempts to even out these hardware differences." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) 1a10: The Pande lab does accept monetary donations, did you know that? :P In any case, I've clarified it. I'm very unfamiliar with the "at = " field. Can you explain? Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) *Thanks. Changes made. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) 1a11: I like your suggestion. So changed. Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) 1a12: Addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) 1a13: It now says "CPU cores". Since it states that they work together, isn't that a sufficient explanation? The section then goes into details as to the specific techniques used to make them work together. Jesse V. (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) *I would be more explicit here. Eg. "the ability to use several CPU cores simultaneously allows to complete..." This wording isn't perfect, I believe you could choose the better one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changes made Jesse V. (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 2b1: I've inserted "work =" and "publisher =" information where it was missing, (diff) does that address that problem? If an article exists for an author/publisher I try to wikilink to it. Please specify where I'm "inconsistent" in that regard. Also, per this page the current format of "FirstName LastName" should be fine, no? Or do I need to do "LastName, FirstName" using first1 and last1 and all that? If you were referring to in-text dates, then I believe I've fixed this with this edit. Jesse V. (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *Looks OK to me, though before applying for FA you may want to convert dates in footnotes to MDY format, as the ISO 8601 date format you are using is depricated. Though this is out of WP:GACR, so I'm not asking it of you now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) 6a1: I see your point. However, I know for a fact that that user is who he says he is, and that statement is accurate. He is a Pande lab member, and this is his foldingforum.org account. I've also written to him via email, and he sent me the GIMP files for that image. Please advise as to how he can confirm his identity. Jesse V. (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) *Though ideal solution is a link to the official website page stating usage rights for this image, e-mail message from the project (that they don't claim copyright or release it under CC0) would be OK. See, if this image was produced while the author was working for the copyright owner of this software, the copyright may belong to the project without author realizing it. Similarly, the way he submitted it may have transferred the rights. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you emailed Dr. Pande and he replied back with clarification on this, would that be satisfactory? You can find his email address on this page. Jesse V. (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr. Pande confirmed the licensing status. I'll take care of noting this on the file's page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) 6b1: I believe I've addressed that issue with this edit. Jesse V. (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) *I marked it as done, as the caption is not too long now, though I would recommend omitting date range, as it is already written in the illustration. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I left that information in the caption to clarify the format those dates are in. Jesse V. (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice: I understand that there are certain things that you are looking for and some improvement suggestions would be outside the scope of this GA review. Therefore if you or anyone else feel that there's something specific that needs to be done to further improve the quality of this article, especially if if can be brought really close to FA standards, feel free to open a topic in the Talk page. I would be eager to hear such suggestions and if I couldn't take care of it myself I'm sure others could. Thanks, Jesse V. (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article frequently uses the constructions similar to "Pande lab using Folding@home". Could they be generalized to omit Pande lab, or there is a reason to constantly mention it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll think more about that, and examine Rosetta@home for some ideas. I guess I couldn't think of better terms, but you should have read the article before I made this edit! :D Jesse V. (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)