Folding Forum

7im wrote:RAH has nice pictures? I see one plain looking screen shot, and a couple of computer generated protein shapes, and a bar graph.

It shouldn't be hard to do better. You can use any of the images on the F@h website in the WIKI (start with something from the results page, then look around the web for a good screen shot, or make your own). I'd also like to see V7 being promoted as a new client standard by which other projects can be measured.

I'll see what I can do here. For one, I really like this image http://pubs.acs.org/appl/literatum/publ ... n_0005.gif as it was listed in the Results section but it's tied to paper 90. I'd like it to have a better background color though, for better contrast. I have the impression I have to be really careful with licenses and whatnot. There are other images I could get from the F@h website I'm sure. I'm not sure how get permission for things like this, although perhaps you can point me to someone who can. I probably could make some nice screenshots, but can I just use them? I'd like to see some statement by a site admin or Dr. Pande about this kind of thing, if its necessary.

As for v7, as tempting as it is not to, I have to pull in info from other sites. Yes I'll be improving the entire article to make it sound as good as it can, but where is the comparison between v7 and other DC clients? For example, it was already written in the F@h website that the Xbox is not as powerful as the PS3, so it won't be used for folding. Something like that for v7 if you know what mean. If nothing like this can be found, perhaps I should look around to see how the R@h or SETI@home software looks like and mention them or something.

7im wrote:As for the intro, start over from scratch, on your own computer. Draw a quick outline of what you want to say. They you can either copy in existing text to say it, or rewrite it in your own words. The later would probably flow better.

It should introduce you to F@h, like you would introduce a friend. Hopefully it sparks a little interest, and people then read the rest of the page.

All right... My head isn't exactly throwing out ideas here, but I'll see what I can do. You've stated your opinions about how the lead should sound, perhaps you could write something?

I'm the muse, not the writer.

All right. Please check the article again. What I basically just did was take that disorganized "Function" section and throw all of its fragmented pieces to other appropriate areas of the article. In the process, I've improved the lead in a very good way, so now more than ever I feel that it really follows what you had in mind. Should be very strong and clear while still remaining relatively simple. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll try something new.

I also commented out that one image of F@h using 99% of the CPU, as illustrated by that Linux CPU monitoring tool. IMO, it conveyed the wrong message, wasn't all that helpful as it was explained well in the article, and wasn't all that appropriate anyway. So now there's one less picture.
I actually like R@h's images. They are colorful, appropriate, and informative. They also seem to have a bit of a "Wow" factor behind them, as its easy to see how R@h's results match experiments. But you're right, the bar graph isn't all that great.
So, the images on our article are becoming an issue. We need more. I'm looking for a screenshot of v7, an image of a protein folding (I've already pointed out one but perhaps there's one that's better), and a better image of folding on the PS3. Perhaps something related to disease would be nice, but that might be too many. In any case, I realize that there are plenty of images on Google, but I still need to figure out permissions/licensing and whatnot.

The point being, please reevaluate the article. Lead should be better, results should be a bit better, article should be better overall, although pictures are lacking somewhat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home

EDIT: Also, is the "Pande Group" and the "Pande Lab" interchangeable? IMO, "Pande Lab" sounds stronger/better, so if they are the same I'd like to use that where I can instead. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide on all these issues.

The Pande Lab has a homepage http://folding.stanford.edu/Pande/Main

I don't know any official designation, but I use the term Pande Group to refer to the People http://folding.stanford.edu/Pande/People

All right. I'll stay with Pande Group then. I guess the Pande Lab is a subset of the Pande Group? And then there's "F@h researchers"...

Anyway, since I've made those other changes I'm still looking for another lookover. Thanks.

Put this somewhere other than the first paragraph, or shorten it. ("Folding at Home", FAH, F@h)

The middle one is the most common, so maybe limit it to that one.

A quick read tells me it flows much better. Not a disjointed assembly of quotes from other pages. Keep going...

7im wrote:Put this somewhere other than the first paragraph, or shorten it. ("Folding at Home", FAH, F@h)

The middle one is the most common, so maybe limit it to that one.

A quick read tells me it flows much better. Not a disjointed assembly of quotes from other pages. Keep going...

Hmm, I'm going to have to disagree with your suggestion to move it. It seems the convention to have it there, although there are a few rare exceptions. Wikipedia's guidelines/policies lay it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... tive_names and I believe it is in the right spot, and I've seen all three forms. FAH may be the most common, but all are used, so it seems correct to me. Perhaps when the rest of the article is fixed we can come back to that.

I'm glad you like the lead and I presume the rest of the article itself. I'm beginning to understand what encyclopedic content sounds like, although I'm finding that it's difficult to get to. Do you have any specific suggestions? That would help me get things improved the right way, instead of me just guessing all the time.

You keep refering back to Rosetta's page as an example, so I'll follow suit. The R@h page doesn't have any alternative names listed.


By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages. Indeed, alternative names can be used in article text in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called "Gdańsk" can be referred to as "Danzig" in suited historical contexts. The editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability.


Fine. Move to later in the first paragraph... because of the second item in red, if you don't mind.

And I see FAH and F@h a lot. I don't see Folding At Home. Just saying...

FYI, the standard on the Folding@home page is to put "(FAH)" right after the first mention of Folding@home in the text on each page. And then use FAH after that, except in any formal statements, which then might use the fuller name.

7im wrote:You keep refering back to Rosetta's page as an example, so I'll follow suit. The R@h page doesn't have any alternative names listed.

Fine. Move to later in the first paragraph... because of the second item in red, if you don't mind.

And I see FAH and F@h a lot. I don't see Folding At Home. Just saying...

FYI, the standard on the Folding@home page is to put "(FAH)" right after the first mention of Folding@home in the text on each page. And then use FAH after that, except in any formal statements, which then might use the fuller name.

Okay. I've made the change in the lead. For your convenience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home
I'm relying on Rosetta@home because that's closest-to-home example I have. Of course FAH's article is going to be much better, but at least I can use R@h for some ideas.

Oh, and I also discovered your mention of FAH vs F@h on the Talk page, so I've changed all "F@h"s to "FAH"s where they appear in the text.
Better? Any other issues?

I think the aka change is better. What did you think about it?

I'll reread it in depth next week when the last of my big projects are done for start of Q4.

7im wrote:I think the aka change is better. What did you think about it?

I'll reread it in depth next week when the last of my big projects are done for start of Q4.

Well I wasn't really considering it until you pointed it out. Now that it's changed I like it much better than before. Thanks!

Looking forward to your suggestions. I'm sure there's going to be many, but that's what I'm looking for. I'll continue to try to improve things here and there until then.

Good luck with your projects,
Jesse V.

I've added a few images to the article. I hope that I sufficiently fulfilled all the image requirements and whatnot...

A lot of works still needs to be done on the article, but the good news is that my list of "I should add this to the article" web bookmarks is now pretty small, although I still have many more papers to summarize. At least a lot of the remaining work now is just wording and cleanup I think.

Please change this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:F@h_v ... e_shot.png to one showing the new default theme. I.e. one that shows the native Windows widgets.

Something like this?

Yes, something like that.

It would be a lot better if you could get a project that shows a description in the lower panel (About Project). It should be easy to capture one of the Alzheimer's projects with a uniprocessor client. That's about all they're getting right now.