Folding Forum

I agree. That would indeed be really great. So far none of project descriptions have shown up, so if someone else has one that would be great. However, I'd prefer if we could find something from the website, because I think they are better images anyway. Perhaps they need to be updated to use the new default themes.

I have to admit that I'm pretty new to working with images on Wikipedia. It seems like there's a lot of legal things that have to be taken care of, and I get the impression just can't go slapping images in there right and left. The images that I added I asked for permission to use, and Dr. Pande responded yes on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=19832 I'm hoping that I handled the setups and copyrights correctly. I really would like to get a better picture in there, and I'm looking for pictures that REALLY describe Folding@home, that go beyond what can be said in the text, and are really impressive themselves. But I'm going to need to make sure I don't plagiarize, because otherwise they will delete my file soon right off the bat. So, if we do get another image, since I'm not confident enough I'm going to need to ask some other Wikipedian for help and/or get Dr. Pande's permission again. So its kind of tricky, but I'll be happy to jump through all the hoops to get a great image up there.

You do not need permission to post a screen capture of the FAHClient, or the FAHViewer, as long as you attribute the software appropriately. It's running on your computer, you can take and post a picture of it on Wikipedia.

codysluder wrote: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.

Fired up another machine to try and get one. 0 for 4 so far...



For those interested, this is a 9850 and 4 295s running 7.1.38 on XP Pro 64.

7im wrote:You do not need permission to post a screen capture of the FAHClient, or the FAHViewer, as long as you attribute the software appropriately. It's running on your computer, you can take and post a picture of it on Wikipedia.

I would be happy to grant permission to use the screenshots I've posted, pursuant to the above of course.

Jesse_V wrote:I agree. That would indeed be really great. So far none of project descriptions have shown up, so if someone else has one that would be great. However, I'd prefer if we could find something from the website, because I think they are better images anyway. Perhaps they need to be updated to use the new default themes...

I am aware of that. However, for the next ~10 days, I will be extremly busy so will not be doing much. However, once I am free, I can update all the images and implement some new ideas.

PantherX wrote:

Jesse_V wrote:I agree. That would indeed be really great. So far none of project descriptions have shown up, so if someone else has one that would be great. However, I'd prefer if we could find something from the website, because I think they are better images anyway. Perhaps they need to be updated to use the new default themes...

I am aware of that. However, for the next ~10 days, I will be extremly busy so will not be doing much. However, once I am free, I can update all the images and implement some new ideas.

Hey PantherX,
I'm aware how busy you are. Don't worry. We'll figure something out in the meantime but we'll look forward to some more images and whatnot.

Many thanks for your efforts,
Jesse V.

Can someone please look over the article again and suggest improvement that should be made? Over the last couple days I've made significant changes to the article. I'm pleased with how it now looks but I'm sure there are more things for me to do. Yes, the images are one, but working the text over I think is easier, so please let me know what I should do there as well.

For convenience, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F@H
And as a reminder, here are the guidelines I'm striving to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GA_criteria

Thanks in advance for your time and any ideas you have.

Well it looks like the F@h article is really entering its refinement stage, which is pleasing since the last three months have been expansion and cleanup. I do believe that I am just about finished adding content to the article, and all that really remains now is to fine-tune the text. It's challenging to assess your own writing, so that's why I'm getting more and more dependent on other eyes to notice and point out flaws and suggestions into how they can be improved. Once I have some of the licensing issues taken care of for the images, and the text tuned up, I'll be pretty much ready to nominate it for a Good Article. Having the help of others in this process greatly accelerates things, so please, if you have any decent English skills at all, please let me know what I can improve and I'll be happy to make the changes. Thanks.

i am certainly no expert but the article looks great to me. keep up the good work Jesse_V!

I noticed that Monte Carlo in the Cores section links to the administrative area in Monaco, but I don't see anything on that page about the scientific method. Is there a page on the scientific method? If not, should the link be there?

In the v7 section, should there be a link to the download site after the phrase "is available for open beta testing"? Seems like a good place for a citation.

In the paragraph on SMP2 the tense jumps around when it shouldn't. I'd also advise to be pay attention to the tense used for the bonus system; right now it's usually referred to in the past tense, but the it's still ongoing and will even when v7 becomes the standard. Maybe clarify that SMP2 introduced the bonus system but that it's not confined to SMP2.

Huntington's: "How this aggregation occurs and previously remains largely unknown" I think there's a word or two missing, but I'm not sure what.

"These former high performance clients use significantly more computing, memory, and network resources," Is "former" supposed to be in there?

The timeline for GPU2 could be a bit weird for people unfamiliar with the project. Currently it says GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008, and was then succeeded by GPU2 on April 10, 2008. We all know that successor clients are launched well before the previous one ends, but a layperson may not get that from what's presented.

I made some minor edits where I felt it was appropriate. Thank you, Jesse, for putting in so much effort.

jimerickson wrote:i am certainly no expert but the article looks great to me. keep up the good work Jesse_V!

Thanks. I try. Folding@home just deserves a quality article, so I'm striving to make one. Plus its interesting to learn about, and I don't mind doing all the research to get all the stuff together. Although many of the F@h papers get really technical, others are just fascinating! Hopefully now when people want to advertise F@h they can just say something like "to take a quote from the comprehensive and well-written Folding@home article, ...". The page gets about 500 views a day, so people are looking at it. Coupled with v7's release and a overhaul of the F@h website around the same time, there will be much less getting between potential donors and the installation of F@h. I'm pleased at how the article is turning out, and honestly, I didn't know HALF of the stuff the article now says when I first started work on it.

Zagen30 wrote:I noticed that Monte Carlo in the Cores section links to the administrative area in Monaco, but I don't see anything on that page about the scientific method. Is there a page on the scientific method? If not, should the link be there?

Fixed. The article it should have gone to was Monte Carlo Methods, which it does now. There are several Wikipedia articles about Monte Carlo things; to find the list click on the "Monte Carlo (disambiguation)" link near the top of the page.

Zagen30 wrote:In the v7 section, should there be a link to the download site after the phrase "is available for open beta testing"? Seems like a good place for a citation.

Indeed it does. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.

Zagen30 wrote:In the paragraph on SMP2 the tense jumps around when it shouldn't. I'd also advise to be pay attention to the tense used for the bonus system; right now it's usually referred to in the past tense, but the it's still ongoing and will even when v7 becomes the standard. Maybe clarify that SMP2 introduced the bonus system but that it's not confined to SMP2.

One of my writing weaknesses is that I sometimes lose track of tenses. I'll see what I can do to fix it in this area.

Zagen30 wrote:Huntington's: "How this aggregation occurs and previously remains largely unknown" I think there's a word or two missing, but I'm not sure what.

Yeah. Wow that is really weird. Changed to "How this aggregation occurs has been largely unknown, but ..."

Zagen30 wrote:"These former high performance clients use significantly more computing, memory, and network resources," Is "former" supposed to be in there?

Obviously not. "former" is there because when I was messing around in that paragraph one of my rough-draft sentences used the word "former" and I guess it somehow got left in. Fixed.

Zagen30 wrote:The timeline for GPU2 could be a bit weird for people unfamiliar with the project. Currently it says GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008, and was then succeeded by GPU2 on April 10, 2008. We all know that successor clients are launched well before the previous one ends, but a layperson may not get that from what's presented.

I'm not entirely positive what I can do to fix this completely, but I removed the "then", which helps a lot I think.

Zagen30 wrote:I made some minor edits where I felt it was appropriate. Thank you, Jesse, for putting in so much effort.

Your welcome. I'm looking forward to the day when it wins Good Article nomination and I can walk away proud that I did something thousands of people will notice. I'll probably let someone else take it up to a Featured Article though. I just don't have the knowledge necessary to assemble comprehensive details on how F@h's methods work and why they are important; I'm a Computer Science sophomore, not Biochem graduate.

And thank you for your efforts proof-reading and copyediting the article. I very much appreciate it.

I'd like to know, does the article meet the Good Article criteria, as listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GACR? One thing that might be an issue is that I want to make sure information is in the right spot and organized properly. Also as I've said before, I need to solve the image copyrights, although it looks like another Wikipedian took care of the F@H logo for me. Aside from the images, I'd like to make sure I get the text taken care of, as that's what people get most of the information from. Thanks again for your help.

Currently it says GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008, and was then succeeded by GPU2 on April 10, 2008.

The GPU2 was released on April 10, 2008 and GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008.

codysluder wrote:

Currently it says GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008, and was then succeeded by GPU2 on April 10, 2008.

The GPU2 was released on April 10, 2008 and GPU1 was officially retired on June 6, 2008.

Thank you. It sounds much better. However, I did have to modify it to make it fit with the statement about scientific inaccuracies with DirectX. Thus it becomes: "The Pande Group learned much about the development of GPGPU software, but citing scientific inaccuracies with DirectX, it was succeeded by GPU2, the second generation successor of the client on April 10, 2008. Several months later, GPU1 was officially retired on June 6. Compared to GPU1, GPU2 was ..."

I hope this works the way you wanted it to. Please let me know if there are any further changes you'd like to see in the article, I would be happy to make them. Once again, I appreciate the feedback. Please keep it coming!

I am continuing my work of improving and honing the article. I'm trying to focus more on using scientific publications as references as much as I can, rather than Dr. Pande's blog posts and various statements on the F@h website. I've found that in general they are simply repeats of what can be found in the published journals, where they are detailed and proved, thus making them superior references. I'm making this post because I recently added a paragraph which provided a lot of useful information into how F@h actually works. I spend a couple hours pouring over some publications and trying to figure out what they were saying in regular terms. What I did understand I put into the article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@ho ... gnificance I feel that this is significant because it is the first time in a year that I have finally come to an understanding of how F@h works. Things are suddenly clicking, and various generalized statements by Dr. Pande and his colleagues seem to fit into place. I will continue to hone my summary, but since it's an important piece of information I felt that it would be very useful to anyone who wanted to know. So if you are curious is to how F@h is able to parallelize protein folding, (which would seem a very serial process) then I suggest you read my description. I believe its correct, but over time I will continue to confirm and whatnot. My Christmas present to the Pande lab.

Great job on the article! It's made more things about the project clear to me. Let's hope it draws new users to the project as well!

JonazzDJ wrote:Great job on the article! It's made more things about the project clear to me. Let's hope it draws new users to the project as well!

On both of those points: that's the idea.