Talk:Rosetta@home/GA1

GA Review

Hi, I will be reviewing this article for GA. The article seems to be very well written. However, there are a few problems I notice. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL there are not supposed to be any external links in the article. This article has quite a few. These need to be converted into citations using a consistent format.

Done. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2431&nowrap=true#40756? It seems to be a messageboard or a forum.

While forums are typically unacceptable sources, I've decided to include posts from Rosetta@home scientists and moderators because they offer reliable information that doesn't seem to be available elsewhere. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph is a little confusing:

In early 2008, Rosetta was used to computationally design a protein with a function never before observed in nature.[20] This was inspired in part by the retraction of a high-profile paper from 2004 which originally described the computational design of a protein with improved enzymatic activity compared to its natural form.[21] The research paper, which cited Rosetta@home for the computational resources it made available, represented an important proof of concept for this protein design method, and could have future applications in drug discovery, green chemistry, and bioremediation.

Does the "research paper, which cited Rosetta@home for the computational resources it made available" refer to the high-profile paper from 2004 that was retracted?

I've attempted to clarify the usage -- thanks for pointing that out. The fix should take care of this point and the preceding one. Emw2012 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosetta made history by being the first to produce a close to atomic level resolution, ab initio prediction in its submitted model for CASP target T0281." This statement appears not to be cited.

Reference added (see Figure 3 in linked site). Emw2012 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section Folding@home does not have any citations.

References added. Emw2012 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have done an excellent work on this article. One more thing, if possible, I notice that you use cite xxx for almost all references but a few you did not format that way and they do not have access dates. References should be consistently formatted. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and added accessdate attributes and values for all usages of 'cite web'. I've refrained from using them on 'cite journal' references, since scientific publications are so rarely altered. While this is consistent within a particular type of reference, let me know if adding access dates for all references is preferable. If so, then I'll go through and add them. Emw2012 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the 'cite journal' is fine. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, under Development history and branches the "</ref>" is showing up at the end of the second sentence.

Nevermind! I found it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still have an external link in the image caption: "Superposition of Rosetta-designed model (red) for TOP7 onto its x-ray crystal structure (blue, PDB ID:".

Removed. Emw2012 (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there: http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/files/1qys.pdb in the caption.

Sorry about that. Both that EL and the EL to Rosetta Commons in the infobox have been fixed. Emw2012 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few little things, like numbers under 10 are to be spelled out. Great job on the article! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comment

A major improvement would be if you explained why predicting protein structures ab initio is difficult and why this task requires so much computing power. This would be a summary of the protein structure prediction article. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added information on ab initio modeling to the third paragraph of the Project significance section. Thank you for the input. Emw2012 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]