Talk:Constraint (computational chemistry)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi: I'll be reviewing this article. It might take a couple of days - this is just an initial note. Best, Ray^Talk 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the heads-up! This is my first GA, so there may be a few things to fix... In any case, I'm looking forward to your comments. Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 07.05.2009 08:34

Hi -- apologies, I was out of town and it dropped my mind, and then things have been a little crazy over here in real life. Anyhow, a checklist, followed by some general comments.

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:

This was, in general, a very nice article. Technically clear, well organized, with plenty of links and references for the interested reader. A few points follow.

In the section on mathematical background, you explain why external explicit constraint forces are not preferred. This section could use more references -- I'm sure it's elementary knowledge to anybody working in the field, but the general reader might not be in the field -- indeed, he might come here specifically to get an idea of what some elementary references on the subject are. This is the nitpick on 2a.

Is the use of the term "constraint algorithm" common in mechanics generally, or is it restricted to simulations of molecular dynamics using classical physics? All the references seem to point to the latter, but the lead seems to suggest differently. That's the reason for the nitpick on 2c.

You allude at various points to considerations of computational complexity, or other advantages and disadvantages to particular methods. Might it be possible to get a table, or some such, of advantages versus disadvantages for each type of method? This might make it easier for the reader. This is not required as part of the GA review, just to be clear -- it's just a suggestion that would make reading the article easier.

It was a pleasure to read, and increased my knowledge a good bit. It's been a while since I was a physics student, but it does bring back memories. Ray^Talk 22:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray!

Thanks for the detailed feedback. I've had a busy few weeks and couldn't work on fixing the issues yet. Can we keep this on hold until next week?

Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 07:39 19.06.2009

Sure. There's no hurry. Ray^Talk 07:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no work done since May. Wizardman 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no updates to this review since June, and no significant edits to the article itself since May. The on hold is now being removed and the article not listed at WP:GA. Please address the concerns raised by the reviewer. Once they are addressed, and the article meets the Good Article criteria, it can be renominated at WP:GAN for another review. Thank you. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]