Talk:National Strategic Computing Initiative

National Strategic Computing Initiative was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 24, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 19, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a goal of the National Strategic Computing Initiative is to combine big data methods with supercomputing technology usually used for physical simulations?

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:National Strategic Computing Initiative/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheDragonFire (talk · contribs) 06:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I'm concerned that the lead does not quite summarize the body of the article sufficiently, but that should fixed at the same time as 3A.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article would benefit from more in depth coverage of the initiative's activities, rather than describing them in such generalities.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Once the issues in 3A are resolved, it will be far easier to come to a conclusion regarding this criteria. As it is currently written, the article spends a lot of time regurgitating government rhetoric, but that may be easier to balance once there is more coverage in general.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Antony-22: Hey! I've completed my initial review of the article. Your response and assistance in working through the issues I've raised would be appreciated. My general comments are that the article is good, but if another one or two sections about the length of "History" can be written discussing the initiative's activities, then I'd probably be in a better position to polish things and pass the article. TheDragonFire (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire: Thanks for the review; I'll try to get to these improvements this weekend. I'd like to point out that the initiative doesn't actually have any real activities currently (with the exception of some pre-existing programs in the Department of Energy), since it hasn't been funded yet. I'll make this more obvious in the article when I revise it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: Thanks again for your work on the article. At this point, we're a still a while off good article status, and I'm probably still happy with the article's C-class assessment. I'd appreciate review by an editor who understands the topic a little more though. Any editor is welcome to close this GA review as failed at any time. I will close it myself in a little bit if there is no further progress. TheDragonFire (talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the extended delay. Give me a couple more days to attend to this; if I haven't made improvements by the end of the weekend you can close the nomination. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to sit down and make the necessary expansions in a timely manner after all—things are much busier for me now than when I nominated this article in January! Thanks for your time reviewing the article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antony-22: Hey! That's all good. Thank you for your work so far, and good luck with any future GAN endeavours. Feel free to ping me if you'd like informal comments on anything, but I will leave a future GAN to another reviewer. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]