Talk:SBML

Quality gradings
This article has a C grade on the quality scale. Whoever allocated the C grade can we find out what was missing from the article? We would like to make it better. From my perspective it looks quite complete, has reliable sources, doesn't contain irrelevant material and looks well structured. There must have been something quite specific that resulted in the C grade. Perhaps a link to a new page on software that supports SBML? Perhaps more detail on the SBML format itself? Perhaps comparisons with other similar efforts, eg CellML? Hsauro (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Herbert. As I said on the mail-list, I think the article would benefit from a number of changes to get it up to B-class and beyond. I've made some suggestions on the main page. The differences between a start class and a B-class article can be rather subjective, but articles awarded good and featured status go through a more rigorous review process, and are something to aim toward. U+003F? 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw your message and a lot of what you said makes sense. Looking at the references I see that there are many from the sbml developers themselves, additional independent citations would be useful. A comparison to other efforts might also be useful. A diagram or so could help, perhaps links to other pages such as a list of software that support sbml. Is there any sense in doing two pages, one which is a simpler description accessible to all and a second page for experts? I've seen that done with other topics. I'm hesitant to contribute anything myself because the work might simply be deleted. I might perhaps make suggestions here on the talk page first. I am curious, who makes the decision that an article is B class or not?  Hsauro (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your contribution would only be deleted if it didn't contribute, as it were. Why don't you try (like adding the reference below, for example)? As to the "B" rating, the decision is made by you, or me, or whoever, and can be changed at any time, though I think it's not there yet. Finally, I would definitely avoid two versions of the page, it just needs to be structured differently. Have a look at WP:TECHNICAL; one good idea there, for example, is to put the introductory/lay-person's text near the top, and save the technical explanations for the end. U+003F? 13:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I upgraded the article to B. None of the reasons to keep it C is met anymore. Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested citations
I would like to suggest the following citations to be added to this article. They are reviews of standards, including sbml and so extend the citation list beyond the sbml community itself:

1. Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2010;121:109-38. Modeling Languages for Biochemical Network Simulation: Reaction vs Equation Based Approaches. Wiechert W, Noack S, Elsheikh A. 2. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009 May 28;367(1895):1823-44. A physiome standards-based model publication paradigm. Nickerson DP, Buist ML. Hsauro (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * SBML.svg