Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding@home/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:35, 11 January 2007.

Folding@home

 * You may be looking for a different page: see discussion of sorting old archive errors here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

See the previous nomination archive Featured article candidates/Folding@home/archive1. I have read What_is_a_featured_article. Pursuant the FAC failure, I have gone through the article & expanded it. Self Nomination. --Foundby 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment User:Foundby has been indefinitely blocked for being a WP:SOCKpuppet of Endgame1, just like User:Records. Suggest speedy closing. AZ t 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong object (speedy WP:SNOW).
 * The WP:LEAD usually should be 4 paragraphs at most for most articles. AZ t
 * How many paragraphs would you say it is right now? thnx--Foundby 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the middle prose sections are completely underlinked, and need wikification. AZ t
 * Could you please tell me which middle prose sections you are talking about? --Foundby 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to pretty much everything under "WU" and "EUE". AZ t 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several stub sections: "Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each, " Types of EUEs" is one paragraph with two sentences, etc. AZ t
 * I Merged EUE sections to remove stubiness; I merged some WU sections so it doesnt look stubby. Merged "Types of EUEs" with "Early Unit End". Fixed (Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each. Am I missing anything else? --Foundby 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The majority of the article is undercited. AZ t 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, there are several other minor stylistic problems: instead of using two hyphens for a dash, use the &amp;mdash; (&mdash;), as is used later in the lead; instead of "February of 2006", write "February 2006" (see MOS:DATE); and read about heading capitalization and articles ("the") in WP:MSH. AZ t 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object Nice article with interesting content but not properly organized, not properly referenced and not up to the writing standards. I understand the concerns about finding references which are not overly technical but still, there's got to be a way to avoid having no references whatsoever throughout the technical middle half. Also section titles should not be phrased as questions (see Manual of Style (headings)) and one paragraph sections should be merged into more coherent units. I'm also not satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the article. In particular, the focus is mostly technical and there does not seem to be much said about the history of the project, its funding, its actual achievements and so on. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why you may think it is overly technical now, is because of the last FAC, in which they said it doesnt have technical information.''--Foundby 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Better Organization: I Merged EUE sections to remove stubiness; I merged some WU sections so it doesnt look stubby. Merged "Types of EUEs" with "Early Unit End". Fixed (Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each. Am I missing anything else? --Foundby 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that encyclopedias shouldn't refer to the reader w/ "you"; for example, The name and project number of a particular WU does not tell you the specifics about that WU. ->  The name and project number of a particular WU does not tell the user the specifics about that WU. More importantly, it should WP:NOT be giving advice to the reader:  If you need to know why you were not awarded any credit you should ask on Folding-Community where a Moderator can lookup your submission with the Project, Run, Clone and Generation numbers of the respective WU. AZ t
 * Fixed. --Foundby 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object yet again; long, disorganized, underreferenced, still not comprehensive. What this article needed was not a pile of stubby sections on the details of the work unit model, but information on the technical justifications for why the method works. Your enthusiasm for the article is appreciated, but again, it needs to be edited by an expert who is knowledgeable about the theory associated with this project, which is fascinating, and a major contribution to the fields of distributed computing and molecular dynamics. Opabinia regalis 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From the titles of published material which can be downloaded from the site, the answers are amongst them: "Mathematical Foundations of ensemble dynamics.", "Atomistic protein folding simulations on the submillisecond timescale using worldwide distributed computing.", and "How well can simulation predict protein folding kinetics and thermodynamics?" are but some. http://folding.stanford.edu/index.html. Is this what you think must be added to the article? --Foundby 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Those would be a start. You absolutely can't get away without this one: Mathematical Foundations of ensemble dynamics. To be honest - and I don't intend to sound rude here - if you have to ask, you're probably not the expert I'm suggesting should write those sections. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah you are right I guess you are the expert here? I thought this FAC was going to be without prejudice. I was wrong. --Foundby 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, an important Note regarding the previous nomination: should this article become an FA at any point, the spammish behavior of User:Records in trying to get this article featured as a means of drumming up more F@H users is a substantial argument against ever putting this on the main page. I would oppose putting this on the main page, and comments to that effect were made during the previous nomination. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm crossing out the strong (just making sure that this wouldn't be a repeat of what happened in the prev. nomination w/ User:Records). It is headed towards the right direction and has potential, but it still needs more WP:LINKing and better WP:CITING. Please also read thru WP:MOS. AZ t
 * Btw, please avoid bolding responses; other editors may mistake this for incivility. AZ t 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who's going to claim that formatting is uncivil, but all the bolding and awkward indenting doesn't make this any easier to read. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a stretch to claim that bolding automatically means incivil. In this case, it doesn't appear to be so.  -- Cyde Weys  15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess this is more of a general statement (see RfA). I'm convinced now that User:Foundby is a WP:SOCKpuppet of User:Endgame1/User:Records/Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Endgame1, so I'm changing my vote to strong/speedy WP:SNOW object. AZ t 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The links to the various cores in the WU Processing section get redirected to Coree, which is a small Native American tribe. This should probably be fixed. Drooling Sheep 09:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object. Very few inline references, and majority of those that are included are from the creators of the software itself. Please incraese the density of refs, and their quality (proper scholarly independent publications). Few more images would be nice, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the lead scientist published over 100 articles in various Scientific Journals. The hard part would be incoporating them in the actual article without making a new section. This is because those Journal articles display the achievement so far, in minute detail, which is not understandable by a novice. --Foundby 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Piotrus, this is a scientific research project. Citing Pande's papers isn't like citing a company press release for information on the popularity of the company's software. That said, there are dozens of papers on the method and the results obtained with it; those should be cited in the article, not Pande's forum posts, emails, and website. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Object. I thought the lead section was actually quite interesting; it provides a good summary of the Folding@Home project, and shows its origins, goals and results. I was hoping for more detailed information about all of that in the main body of the article. This was not to be, alas. The rest of the article reads more like a readme.txt that comes with the software than a comprehensive view of the F@H project. It focuses almost exclusively on highly technical and detailed aspects of the client software, and hardly spends any time on matters such as the project's origins, the people behind it, the goals, the results, the popular reception or comparisons with other distributed computing programs. Even when viewed as a purely software-oriented article it falls short, as the article tells next to nothing about the server-side of things; questions about where the data comes from, how it is distributed, and how the results are recombined and processed remain unanswered. It might be an idea to rename this article to "Folding@Home software", or something similar, and then create a completely new article about the "non-technical" subjects (in quotes, as protein folding simulation in itself is a highly technical subject matter, obviously). Otherwise, I'd say the current article needs extensive pruning, followed by the development of the other subject matters to make it comprehensive. --Plek 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually I respectfully disagree with Plek. I think keeping it to one article is a better Shrink, don't split approach. The comparison to readme.txt is very relevant: the article is in dire need of critical distance. I can't stress enough the need to get rid of that apparent citation from an email received by yourself (I suppose) attributed to "Vijay" (as opposed to Professor Pande). Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong and speedy object per Plek. I agree that the entire article looks like it was copied from a readme and slightly changed. The entire text is difficult to understand for readers not familiar with the subject and filled with POV. There are also stubby sections and unreferenced facts, as well as plenty of WP:MOS problems. I suggest that the nominator would compare this to other featured articles we have such as Tourette Syndrome.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I refuse to concede defeat. I insist the FAC continue. --Foundby 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:POINT My Wikistress levels are rising, an issue important to me has been handled unfairly in my view. --Foundby 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Question. Can you pls explain why you've blown out the entire Table of Contents of the WP:FAC page with these endless sections, and pls be considerate of other reviewers and remove them?  Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NO answer, so I removed some of them. The inflammatory headings were dominating the FAC TOC, and not helping the article's candidacy (particularly since they don't even conform to WP:MSH).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Early Unit End section has been copied from another wiki. That wiki and its content has been licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike licence. I don't know if that's if compatible with the GFDL. CloudNine 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OBJECT Too many stubby sections. Fails 1(a). The lead is decently written, but the rest of the article is not.  Reads like a training manual.  Fails 3. No images. Fails 1(c). Not nearly enough referencing, does not comply with WP:CITE, etc. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.