Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World Community Grid/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 15:06, 14 August 2007.

World Community Grid
I've done a lot of work to improve this article, and believe that it now passes the featured article criteria. I requested a peer review at Peer review/World Community Grid/archive1 but unfortunately received only a couple of comments. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fix the external jumps that look like this, then them into refs.Rlevse 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There's only two of them, and they're left there intentionally because they're links to regularly updated statistics pages. The user is encouraged to click the link to see the latest statistics. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * doesn't matter.Rlevse 10:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style is a guideline, and not set in stone. There were two places in this article where it was more helpful to the user to just use an external link jump rather than an inline reference. —Remember the dot (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so we pick and choose what we follow.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on common sense and careful consideration, yes. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

oppose per all of the following:
 * expand role of partners and how the companies use the technology within their operations LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly would you like to see? Partner organizations encourage their members to install the WCG client, and feedback from partners is probably given preferential treatment. I'm not sure what more this section needs to say. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * expand detials of operation: inputs, description of info processed, processing time, processing difficulties, outputs LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have greatly expanded the "Operation" section and created a new "Statistics and competition" section. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * expand details for the results of the completed projects LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added more information about the FightAIDS@Home paper. Is there anything else you'd like to see? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * create section for upcoming projects or expected efforts LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * expand references to sources beyond the WCG website, e.g. major news coverage, government press releases, etc LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that while WCG is mentioned in the news and promoted on and off the web, the details are for the most part only verifiable from the WCG web site or through original research. Is there a specific source you had in mind that you'd like to see included in the article? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * for example, the new york times has multiple articles relating to the subject in the archives, but none are referenced in the article. including other major media sources significantly improves the notability and verifiability of the topic. LurkingInChicago 02:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to the New York Times archives. If you have access, would you be willing to add the citations that you requested? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * continued oppose - the overarching point is that the article needs considerable expansion of verifable references outside of the organization that produces the software to satisfy FA criteria, specifically 1c. i strongly question if the internet forums referenced in the article qualify as reliable sources, e.g. with fact-checking, editorial oversight, peer review, or widely known credibility.  an FA is the "best of the best" - including the best in comprehensiveness and accuracy of referencing. LurkingInChicago 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * then expand the lead LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you like mentioned in the lead that is not currently present? —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thorough copy edit LurkingInChicago 21:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Already ✅. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above.Rlevse 14:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

1a issues:
 * "an average decrease of processor use"—"in", even though there's another in the sentence.
 * I'm confused as to what you mean. The word "in" is used only once in that sentence. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Spaced em dash not "normal", according to MOS. Spaced en or unspaced em.
 * ✅ —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "It should be noted"—no way: wrong message to reader.
 * How exactly would you like this changed? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "open source BOINC client"—most readers will find a hyphen easier.
 * I've wikilinked "open source" to open source, which should clear up any confusion. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Teams allow for a heightened sense of community identity and attempts to inspire competitiveness." Grammar.
 * ✅ —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could do with a once-over by someone new. Tony 01:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you have not contributed to this article. Would you like to help? —Remember the dot (talk) 18:27, 13 August 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.