Wikipedia:Featured article review/Folding@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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC) [1].

Folding@home

Review section

Notified: Jesse V., Six WikiProjects

Nominating this article because of the update tag the article has in its "Patterns of participation" section. Also nominating because of unsourced material in the article. GamerPro64 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question How does the section update tag figure into the FAC? I don't see "out of date" as one of the criteria. Do featured articles in general have expiry dates? Thanks, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the section needs updating, then it would mean that the article does not meet Criteria 1 of the Featured Article criteria, as it would not be comprehensive or well-researched. GamerPro64 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your explanation. The update tag was placed, without explanation, by a controversial user, FAMASFREENODE, who was blocked after just 208 edits. I would be inclined to remove such a tag as FUD that is unhelpful for improving the article. I suppose every FA goes out of date the moment an RS with new content is published on the subject, but without a substantial, concrete criticism, it is hard to address the problem short of a full literature review. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include some sentences requiring citations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Keep as of now. FAR should be a collaborative process and I don't see much of anything happening here, not even a basic worklist or enumerated issues from the nominator. The controversial tag has been removed and the article seems to be in fine shape overall. --Laser brain (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: could you take a new look here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time to enumerate and clarify the issues here. It looks like an obvious delist at this point. --Laser brain (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELIST. A whole lotta this article is sourced to ... themselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is of significant academic interest with major implications for medical research into Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and many forms of cancer, among other diseases. According to whom? Unless someone can explain the puffery and significant sourcing to self, I will be a Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" This kind of claim cannot be cited to self! Folding@home is one of the world's fastest computing systems, with a speed of approximately 98.7petaFLOPS

And there is no indication sourcing was reviewed when this passed FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cited to a 2012 source: Since its launch on 1 October 2000, the Pande Lab has produced 212 scientific research papers as a direct result of Folding@home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cited to a 2011 source: Preventing Aβ aggregation is a promising method to developing therapeutic drugs for Alzheimer's disease, according to Drs. Naeem and Fazili in a literature review article. Pure and outdated puffery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All cited to eight-year-old sources, and more. This article actually reeks of paid editing. In December 2008, Folding@home found several small drug candidates which appear to inhibit the toxicity of Aβ aggregates.[53] In 2010, in close cooperation with the Center for Protein Folding Machinery, these drug leads began to be tested on biological tissue.[32] In 2011, Folding@home completed simulations of several mutations of Aβ that appear to stabilize the aggregate formation, which could aid in the development of therapeutic drug therapies for the disease and greatly assist with experimental nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies of Aβ oligomers.[50][54] Later that year, Folding@home began simulations of various Aβ fragments to determine how various natural enzymes affect the structure and folding of Aβ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar has scores of recent journal articles that aren't included; in fact, there is almost NO recent content in this article (that is, since 2016). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominators, Jesse V. and Johnnaylor haven't touched the article for more than five years.[2] It may not have been outdated then, but it is now. It doesn't look like it was adequately sourced even when it passed FAC. The version that passed FAC also relied a lot on non-independent sources.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guess when you put it that way, this article is worse than I previously declared. GamerPro64 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the dreadful sourcing: almost all to them, their members, or their founder. Puffery everywhere. Unsourced claims everywhere. Why did this pass FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That just makes its promotion even more dubious and shameful. GamerPro64 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look and the excellent concrete criticisms! Worse than I realized and fixing the problems is going to be more than I can handle currently. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Per my initial comments and Sandy's comments. GamerPro64 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Pending a champion to fix all the problems identified by SandyGeorgia (and no doubt other problems of the same ilk), serious sourcing problems and promotional content cause this article to fall far short of FA or GA standards. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:10, 20 January 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. Casliber (talk) 02:58, 23 January 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.