Wikipedia:Peer review/Rosetta@home/archive2

Rosetta@home

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this article has been significantly improved from the version I started working on almost a month ago, but I would like input from more experienced editors before nominating it as a good article. Considering that the article was flagged as reading like an advertisement and being generally NPOV before my overhaul, I would appreciate comments on if/where those violations still exist in addition to any other general advice.

Thanks, Emw2012 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RJH comments—Here's a few suggestions that I hope are of some use to you:

The following assertion doesn't appear to be explained in the text: "Two particularly important tests..." Why are the tests particularly important?
I'd like to see "Computing platform" list the protocol and port number for the internet connection. You should also mention how it is initiated, including as a screen saver. Is this open source? Do you know what language(s) it was written in?

I expanded the 'Computing platform' section from one paragraph to four, addressing each of your concerns. Emw2012 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page includes many brief sections. You might consider merging them.

I think most of the second level sections (e.g. Mini Rosetta, HIV, etc.) are brief, but the subject of some of them should be distinguished from the rest of the first level section. I will work on expanding those second level sections to at least four- or five-sentence paragraphs.

Normally you shouldn't repeat the article title in a section title. The section is assumed to be about the article topic unless it says otherwise.

The section title in question, 'Development history and branches of Rosetta', has been changed to simply 'Development history and branches'. It's necessary to have 'Rosetta' in some of the second level sections (like RosettaDock and RosettaDesign) since those describe distinct applications that run in Rosetta@home.

The "Features and Issues" section should be converted from a bulleted list to prose. Some of the bullets could be merged into the "Computing platform" section.

As of now I've removed the "Features and Issues" section -- it seemed to contain a lot of outdated information, would be a pain to overhaul into good prose, and important parts can be merged into other sections. I will incorporate some of those bullet points into the 'Computing platform' section when I expand it with your other suggestions.

My personal preference is to use citations rather than inline links. The former can include other information about the web page, while the latter is subject to link rot and then you have lost all information about the source.

I'm not sure what you been by 'citations rather than inline links' -- could you explain? Emw2012 (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]