Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titan (supercomputer)/archive1


 * 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by 10:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC).

Titan (supercomputer)

 * Nominator(s): James086 Talk  21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

After a rather unsuccessful peer review, I've decided to be bold and nominate it for FA. The computer isn't completely in normal operation yet, but the only changes I anticipate being necessary is the addition of the date that the remainder of the machine is accessible to the users (see the 2nd to last paragraph of History). I don't think this is enough to prevent crit. 1e being met. James086 Talk 21:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: James086. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Image review - captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Licensing is fine (though I don't have OTRS access). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * diff 1 James086 Talk  14:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe this work is worthy of Featured Article status, so I am lending my support. Nice job and good luck with the remainder of the FAC process. Praemonitus (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments &rarr; Hello. The following article elements items caught my eye when I read through the article for the first time:


 * "however, selection for time on the computer depends on the importance of the project and potential to fully utilise the hybrid architecture but the code must run on other supercomputers to avoid dependence solely on Titan" &rarr; The "must run" here seems ambiguous since it could also mean that the binary code must spent part of it's time in other systems; perhaps change it to "must be executable".
 * Many of the below changes are also in this diff: diff 2


 * "Six "vanguard" codes were selected to be the first to run on Titan dealing mostly with molecular scale physics or climate models but other projects are also queued for use of the machine." &rarr; The "but" here doesn't appear to be an exception. The other projects are queued up by necessity because they weren't selected to be the first six. Perhaps replace it with "while" and reword it accordingly.
 * The first use of "parallelism" in the lead should be linked to Parallel computing.
 * The term "ESnet" needs to be linked to Energy Sciences Network.
 * "...in early 2013 and but only completed...": is the 'and' here superfluous?
 * The technical terms "nuclear reactions", "radiation transport", "nuclear burning", "reactor core", "reactor fuel cycle" should be linked.
 * The article could mention the planned succession upgrade currently scheduled for 2016.
 * diff 3 I added info on the 2016 replacement and mentioned their long term goal. I hope that's sufficient as I haven't seen much more than that out there.

Some of the prose may perhaps require refinement, but I'll leave the review of that to other individuals. Otherwise the article content appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I imagine the prose will be the major issue, I tend to be rather mediocre at copyediting. Thanks very much for your comments. James086 Talk  09:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing these issues. I'll change to support once a review of criteria 1a is completed. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I took another pass through the article and found a couple of minor points: Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "...maintain energy efficiency while...": energy efficiency or energy usage? The energy cost per FLOPS decreased significantly, so efficiency has improved.
 * "6600 tons": most of the article lists metric units as the primary unit type. Should this be in tonnes?
 * Made the changes diff. Also, thanks for the copyedits. James086 Talk  19:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Review by Imzadi1979: I stumbled here from my current nomination, and I'd like to offer some review comments.
 * Sentences with full American-format dates like "... on November 16, 2010 and was publicly announced on October 11, 2011 as the ..." should have commas after the years.
 * For a supercomputer based in, and funded by, the US, I'd expect to see the unit spelled "meter" not "metre". There is and option in convert to force the US spelling.
 * I'm not sure it's necessary to specify that the prices are in "US$" given that this is a US-related topic. Now if we had some costs quoted in other dollar currencies, then yes, but here is isn't necessary. If the first mention of "US$" is retained for some reason, the link should point to United States dollar, not US.
 * Only the first time a publisher or agency is mentioned in the references does it need to be linked. Repeating the link in each subsequent footnote is overlinking and should be discouraged. I'd double check your authors accordingly as well for repeated links in footnotes.
 * The BBC is normally only a publisher, not a "work"; the individual TV programs they produce would be the "work", so the BBC itself should not be in italics. I'd audit the use of work vs. publisher in the footnotes to correct any other similar issues.
 * A link to Portal:Information technology in the "See also" section, while not required, might be nice.
 * That's all I see for now, I'll come back when I have a little more time to read the article and offer any needed comments on the prose.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this valuable and educational quality improvement project effort, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by Cirt
 * 1) 2nd sentence in lede/intro sect makes use of three (3) commas, it reads a bit long, could this sentence be broken into two smaller sentences?
 * 2) 2nd sentence in 2nd paragraph of intro/lede sect - word "however" could be trimmed, keeping the semicolon, and the sentence would be more concise and read a bit better without a detriment from removal of the word.
 * 3) Same can be said for 1st sentence of 3rd paragraph in lede/intro sect, removal of word "however" would improve it without detriment to readability of the sentence.
 * 4) 3rd sentence of 3rd paragraph in intro/lede sect - perhaps it's just me but it seems unclear why word "vanguard" is in quotes here?
 * 5) 4th sentence in 3rd paragraph of lede/intro sect - maybe "have had" could be changed to just "had..." ?
 * 6) Last paragraph in History sect, two-sentence-long-paragraph, seems kinda to be hanging there at the end, maybe there could be a little more info about this, or perhaps this could be all merged into another sect?
 * 7) Might be nice to add at least one or maybe two relevant portals into the See also sect, up to you.

Graham Colm (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.