Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rosetta@home/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

Rosetta@home[edit]

Notified: Emw, Falconet8, WikiProject Computational Biology, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, and talk page on 2020-08-08

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article relies overly on primary sources, including unreliable sources. There are some secondary issues as well: the lead suffers a bit from WP:RECENTISM, and has too many small paragraphs. The HIV subsection is one sentence long. There are too many external links, many of which go to the own website of the initiative. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC No progress Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - No progress, and significant issues. The comparison section, in particular, is a mess. The statement "In other words, Folding@home's strength is modeling the process of protein folding, while Rosetta@home's strength is computing protein design and predicting protein structure and docking." is uncited and probably OR, "Of all the major distributed computing projects involved in protein research, Folding@home is the only one not using the BOINC platform" is backed up by sources from 2011 and earlier and possibly out of date, "More information on the relationship between the HPF1, HPF2 and Rosetta@home can be found on Richard Bonneau's website" is borderline spam IMO, and almost the whole section uses either dated or unreliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section mostly centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist still no progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as no meaningful progress has been made. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: unsourced statements from August 2020. DrKay (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, very significant sourcing issues. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.