Folding Forum

Jesse_V, I welcome your effort.

Excellent effort. Just not sure "author" is the correct term to use in your .sig. Maybe primary editor or updater would be more accurate.

All right. I do believe that I'm essentially finished adding content and fiddling with the phrasing. Finally! It's very much in a request-for-comment period; now more than ever this is an excellent time to point out corrections/tweaks/improvements/etc. I've made mistakes before, ("v7" instead of "V7", "F@H" instead of "FAH", "core" instead of "fahcore", etc, thanks to 7im for catching those!) and I would very much appreciate it if someone could carefully read through the article to make sure I have things right to the best of their knowledge. I really want to have accurate information and a solid encyclopedic article on Folding@home, so please let me know if there's something I need to fix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home

Besides neutrality, one of the things that I'm watching for is the length of the article. It's currently at 6818 words, but there's just a lot to talk about. (Virus and DNA are Featured Articles and have 8004 and 7136 words respectively) If you feel that there's excessive details or overly drawn out paragraphs, please let me know. I'm grateful to those who have already suggested improvements and helped me along so far, including 7im, Ivoshiee, Zagen30, PantherX, and MtM. jcoffland himself was gracious enough to spend some time in GIMP making a unique but nice logo for the article. I look forward to hearing latest critiques from everyone. If the article seems to be accurate and a good article on F@h, I will notify Dr. Pande and politely ask for his review and final corrections, assuming of course that he has the time to do so. Then I will put it up for Good Article nominations, where I'm fairly confident that it'll do well.

Once again, the criteria that I'm currently aiming for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_criteria
This is the ultimate goal that it should reach eventually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... e_criteria

Current citation breakdown: several books, 65 scientific publications, 31 folding.typepad.com posts, 27 forum posts nearly exclusively by scientists/admins/mods, 26 folding.stanford.edu pages, 11 project descriptions, and 31 other miscellaneous websites.

I made a number of minor grammatical edits. I'm not great at picking out larger-scale structural issues, so while I think it's fine in that regard you may hear otherwise from others.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home#PlayStation_3

First sentence of second paragraph, start date for the PS3 is off. FAH was supported with 1.60, which was released in 2007.

http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/support/system-software/detail/item60089/Update-features-%28ver-1-60%29/

In the cancer section, possibly switch the 2005 and 2004 sentences - makes for a better timeline

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I was looking for! I welcome further reviewers to catch things here and there. Keep up the good work!

Zagen30 wrote:I made a number of minor grammatical edits. I'm not great at picking out larger-scale structural issues, so while I think it's fine in that regard you may hear otherwise from others.

I saw your edits. Much appreciated. It's difficult to see such mistakes since much of it is my own writing. Thanks.

Amaruk wrote:From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home#PlayStation_3

First sentence of second paragraph, start date for the PS3 is off. FAH was supported with 1.60, which was released in 2007.

http://uk.playstation.com/ps3/support/system-software/detail/item60089/Update-features-%28ver-1-60%29/

Quite right, I've fixed that error.

Nathan_P wrote:In the cancer section, possibly switch the 2005 and 2004 sentences - makes for a better timeline

So changed. I had it out of order like that because the 2005 study was about p53 mutations, which fit with the intro better. But now that you mention it, its not that big a deal and its better to have things in chronological order anyway.

It has begun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Folding@home/GA2
It appears that my information is correct and that its neutral, which are two things that I was concerned about. But so far it looks like I need to address some wiki-syntax issues and make some clarifications. That should be pretty straightforward.

Suggestions are still welcome of course. Thanks everyone for your help so far!

-Jesse V.

Some suggestions for the references:

For #172, it should be 2012 instead of 2011.
For #180, another link should be found if possible that isn't Wayback Machine and isn't refused by a robots.txt file.
For #185, the link should be changed from the current one, as it is "under embargo", to http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja207470h.

Based on what I saw on the GA2 list in the post immediately preceding this one, #9 is the only criterion left for what could be GA status. Good work Jesse_V!

TonyStewart14 wrote:Some suggestions for the references:

For #172, it should be 2012 instead of 2011.
For #180, another link should be found if possible that isn't Wayback Machine and isn't refused by a robots.txt file.
For #185, the link should be changed from the current one, as it is "under embargo", to http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja207470h.

Based on what I saw on the GA2 list in the post immediately preceding this one, #9 is the only criterion left for what could be GA status. Good work Jesse_V!

172: Wow, that's a catch! I guess I copy/pasted another folding.typepad.com citation and didn't completely change that field. You must have spent a good while searching before finding that mistake!
180: The Wayback Machine was working a month or two ago; how odd that the link is broken now. In any case, I've found a replacement which is almost as good.
185: Not much I can do about that. All the relevant fields are filled out on the "Markov State Model Reveals Folding and Functional Dynamics in Ultra-Long MD Trajectories" citation, and Wikipedia automatically makes the link. I've run a script which checks my entries with its extensive database, but it didn't fix anything. There are several alternative links; did none of them work for you? I'm on Utah State's network, so my view and access is different than yours. The issue may resolve itself over time as the publication becomes freely available to the general public or something like that. AFAIK, I can't do much about fixing this issue though.

Issue #1a9 is indeed the last of the issues! I have until Friday to take care of it, and I've already made some changes which should, IMO, address the issue but I'm waiting for Czarkoff's response. At the minimum a good portion of the issue should be taken care of.
Thanks for your careful review!
-Jesse

ACHIEVEMENT GET: Good Article status!

I am exceptionally pleased to announce that the Folding@home article has now passed its review, and is now listed as a Good Article. For those who are unfamiliar with what that means, to sum up Wikipedia's criteria, it means that its well-written and concise, factually accurate and cites very reliable references, broadly covers the topic but avoid unnecessary detail, its fairly neutral and stable, and is properly illustrated by images which have correct copyright tags. I am very grateful to everyone who has helped me get it there so far, even some of the PG scientists who clarified some technical issues.

I've strived to make a solid place for information on this project. It's text is freely reproducible, so I would strongly encourage anyone to use it when talking about Folding@home or answering a specific question. Although folding.stanford.edu provides a general overview, there are a lot more details and information in this article. Back when it was back in this state, it was difficult to learn more details into what the project studies and what it has accomplished. Although there are probably many people who run Folding@home without knowing anything about what it is doing, I think that there are a good number who are naturally inquisitive and would like to learn more. That's what this article is for. I've searched through the scientific publications and current review articles so they don't have to. Drs. Pande and Bowman have informed me that at although they didn't do a thorough check, (which is understandable; they are very busy after all) they couldn't find anything wrong with it and didn't see anything important that needed to be added.

Good Article status is arguably a halfway point for Wikipedia articles. As Wikipedia puts it: "the good article criteria measure decent articles; they are not as demanding as the featured article criteria, which determine our best articles." I encourage further editing and encyclopedic improvements of this article.

At this point I think I've finished most of my work. I'm not sure I have the word-smithing skills necessary to bring it up to Featured Article status. I may get back to further improving it, but at least for a good while I don't have any plans of heavily editing it. I'm sufficiently satisfied with its status as it is, and feel free to reference it as you like.

I'm going to lock this topic.

It's a job well-done, and congratulatory messages can be posted here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=21222

In the future, if we need more proofreading, feel free to start a new topic.