Wikipedia:Peer review/Folding@home/archive1

Folding@home

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm eager to improve this article as much as I can, with the ultimate goal of achieving FA status. As the primary editor, this article consists almost entirely of my writing, so it's becoming more difficult for me to determine what needs to be further improved. I've already achieved GA status, and some of the criteria quickly passing without comment. In response to my inquiry regarding how I could further improve the prose, the GA reviewer, Czarkoff, later commented "The current text actually impressed me with the balance between the depth of coverage and ease of apprehension, as well as between medical and computing topics. I don't think something should be changed in this regard." (diff) Thus, I'm beginning to feel that it's getting close to FA standards but I'd appreciate a review to help me get there. I wouldn't mind a detailed and thorough analysis, but any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks, Jesse V. (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home review part 1 from JMiall (This is by no means my area of expertise so I am analysing it as it reads without looking at any of the refs)

By not looking at refs, and by reviewing with little knowledge beforehand, that certainly gives you an advantage! Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I was surprised that molecular dynamics linked to an article defining it as computer simulation. I would have naively assumed that something called x-dynamics was the general study of the dynamics of x as seems to be generally the case rather than limiting it to only computer simulations.

I've rewritten that sentence. The wikilink makes more sense now. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'to predict that final structure and determine how other molecules may interact with it' - to interact with the structure or the protein?

Well both I guess. It's interacting with the protein, but the structure is crucial to understanding how it interacts. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'The project is dedicated to understanding protein folding, the diseases that result from misfolding, and developing new methods for computational drug design' - hasn't this just been said in the paragraph or are you talking about a project within Stanford that includes F@h?

Well it sums up the paragraph. I've merged it with the first sentence instead. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Completed work units' are mentioned as returning before we know what a work unit is, how a computer gets it or what counts as completion.

They are explained later in the article, but good point. I've tried to clarify this a bit. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is not clear what a 'credit point' is when it is first mentioned

It is explained later in the article. However, I've removed mention of them from the lead. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'This global computing network' - you have not yet established that it is global, just that it uses 1000s of computers.

Good catch. It is global though, (see this) but I've changed it to "large-scale" because that's more clear. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'the Pande lab has produced ninety-six scientific research papers as a direct result of the project using simulation methodology that is a paradigm shift away from traditional computational approaches' - there are 2 possible meanings to this that it would be good to clarify - have they produced 96 papers as a direct result of the methodology used? or produced 96 papers as a result of the project, which by the way happens to use a new method of simulation? Also isn't 'paradigm shift away from' something of a tautology?

I've separated the statements, but the latter is the most accurate. The methodology is dividing up the simulation and using distributed computing, which is a paradigm shift because its not just straightforward computation. It's now "from" instead of "away from". Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'accuracy compared to' - do you mean comparible to?

Yes. See accuracy. Jesse V. (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word "compared" because it's redundant. Jesse V. (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'it typically proceeds smoothly' - what is meant by smoothly here? particularly as not long after the process is described as 'stochastic'.

I believe the source uses "smoothly". It supposed to mean that folding proceeds without problems. I'll think about a better word choice. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'where state each'

Derp! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I properly understand the operation of the simulation from the description:

I'll do my best to help, but I'm not a biochemistry expert and sometimes the technical papers lose me. It was challenging to write that article's paragraph! Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

1. How are the local minima in the energy landscape from which the simulations are started found?

   I actually don't know for certain, I only have half-guesses. Do you think its important to clarify this? Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

   Yes. Just finding the minima could be a massive computational challenge by itself. JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   All right. On my long-term to-do list. I'm currently trying to figure out how to access the publications from outside Utah State University. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

2. How is the phase space explored? In what way is the exploration different than "waiting" for the protein to leave the minimum and evolve to a new minimum?

   By moving from one minima and finding a new one, you are exploring the phase space. At least, that's my understanding. I've reworded the statement. Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

   So is the method of finding a new minimum to set off in a direction in phase space from one minimum and hope that somewhere along that direction will also be a minimum? If not what is it? And how is the direction chosen? JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   Also on my long-term to-do list. I don't know the answer to either of those questions. Clearly requires more research... Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

3. 'arbitrary resolution' - resolution on what scale?

   I've read that they can "zoom in" into a MSM and see all the configurations which represent a small local minima, or "zoom out" and view the bigger picture where the more prominent local minima dominate the model. I've tried to clarify this. Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

4. how is it known that no minima have been missed?

   I've never thought about that! I'll have to do some research or ask an expert, just out of curiosity. Is this important to clarify in the article, or is it an unnecessary detail? Jesse V. (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

   Well it is important to my understanding of how it works. If more detail about how the minima were first generated was available then it may be less important.JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

   On my long-term to-do list. I'll have to do some more research. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• linking to measurement uncertainty on something that is definitely not a measurement.

Well measurement uncertainty limits the model. Hence they can identify what is causing the most uncertainty, and address it to create a more accurate model. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'In 2002 Folding@home used... and in 2011 they parallelized' but 'In January 2010 researchers used... Folding@home to' - Use and be used. Should this be consistent throughout?

I'm confused as to what you're saying here. I did replace "they" with "MSMs" for clarity, and I think the tense is okay. Please clarify. Jesse V. (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was sometimes in the article F@h is treated as an entity that does things by itself and sometimes as an object which is used by others. Consistency would be better.JMiall₰ 15:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks for the clarification. I made changes and now F@h as a single entity when its simulating something, but make the distinction that scientists/researchers use it to study something or publish a paper. So in that sense, I will be consistence. See also Rosetta@home. Is this sufficient? Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'including... among others' - more tautology

  Has been been addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Cellular infection by viruses such as HIV and influenza also involve folding events within cellular membranes,[29] and computer-assisted drug design has the possibility to expedite drug discovery' - why 'also'? drugs to do what? the part after ref 29 could be generally true and reads rather like it has been bolted on to the 1st half.

  They are now two separate sentences. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

JMiall₰ 00:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home review part 2 from JMiall' (based on a printout from a couple of days ago)

• the article talks a lot about folding but do any proteins get created in a folded state, have to unfold and then fold into a new shape? If so does F@h simulate this?

  It mostly focuses on folding and misfolding. A protein's native state is a pretty big energy minima, maybe even the minimum, so once it gets there AFAIK it won't spontenously fold into something else. There's a YouTube video I've seen where Dr. Pande draws an analogy between protein folding and parking a car. The protein does something, realizes that its now its now in an unworkable state, and backs up and tries something a bit different. I'll research whether F@h studies protein refolding and things like that. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Why can't the F@h methodology be used on supercomputers? AFAIK many of these use a very parallel architecture that would seem well suited to the problem so 'strong scaling of molecular simulations to these architectures is exceptionally difficult' seems an odd comment.

  It's true that supercomputers have thousands of processors which aim to do the work in parallel. These processors are often connected by a high-speed bus. From what I've read, its difficult to get straightforward simulations to use all available processors, and the bus is heavily used. F@h's MSM methodology wouldn't need this bus much at all, since the work is very parallelizable. But the supercomputer's processors may be slower than regular consumer-grade processors, and as the article states supercomputers are very expensive to run and shared by many research groups. Anyway, I've added "traditional" before "molecular simulations" so that it's more clear. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• You use the 'While statement x, statement y' construction a lot. For a bit of variety and simplifying the English many of these could be rewritten as 'Statement x but statement' or 'Even though statement x, statement y' etc.

  True. I like your suggestions a lot, and have applied them. The writing does seem much better! Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Once it is understood how a protein misfolds, therapeutic intervention can be the next step, which can use engineered molecules to:' - wouldn't engineering the molecules be the next step and therapeutic intervention be years down the line? I'm not sure the colon is needed either.

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Folding@home is dedicated to producing significant amounts of results towards protein folding' - rewrite

  I replaced "towards" with "about" because that seems to be better. I don't know what the problem is. Please clarify or offer suggestions. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'In addition to the diseases listed below, Folding@home also studies' - there's a big list of diseases above at the start of the section. Why do we need another list here?

  The first list was about diseases that followed protein misfolding, the other list indicated other diseases that F@h studied. Since there was a great deal of overlap and malaria and Chagas Disease appear to be small pilot projects, I've removed the list entirely. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'As a part of Stanford University, a non-profit organization, the Pande lab does not sell' - this doesn't follow, non-profits can still sell things

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'upon request, while some' -> 'upon request and some'

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'so that the algorithms which benefited Folding@home will also aid other scientific areas' - will? Just sharing the algorithms doesn't ensure they will be useful.

  Good point. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'For example, in 2011 they released the open-source Copernicus software, which uses techniques developed on Folding@home to significantly improve the efficiency and scaling of molecular simulations on large clusters or supercomputers' - this contradicts earlier in the article. See previous point.

  I've made some improvements to this statement. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'The full publications are available online from a local municipal or academic library' - so if I go to my local library I'll have access?

  If your library has purchased a subscription to the journal in which the paper is published, or if the library pays for the paper by itself, then yes. But you raise a good point. I've removed the "local municipal" part. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'In excessive concentrations of misfolded Aβ, protein oligomers begin to form which in turn continues Aβ misfolding, while the oligomer itself slowly grows.' - how about 'High concentrations of misfolded Aβ cause protein oligomer growth. These oligomers also contribute to Aβ misfolding.' ?

  I like that much better! I combined the two statements and used "High concentrations of misfolded Aβ cause protein oligomer growth that in turn contribute to Aβ misfolding." Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'timescales in order of tens of seconds' - of the order of

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'This was much longer than previously performed and significant as previous simulations had been limited to several hundreds of microseconds: six orders of magnitude short of experimentally relevant timescales' - this needs a rewrite but aren't you also saying then that tens of seconds is still not relevant?

  I've rewritten it. No, tens of seconds is relevent. 100 microseconds * 10^6 = 10 seconds, so the order of magnitude statement is correct. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'specific small molecules' - which ones? how small?

  Addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'as well as preparing them for future' - them = the small molecules?

  Already addressed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'This is a promising approach' - is regarded as a?

  Better! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'several small drug candidates to fight Alzheimer's Disease which' - get rid of 'to fight Alzheimer's Disease'

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'which could aid in the development of therapeutic drug approaches to the disease' - this kind of thing has been said a lot recently in the article

  Well yes. Would you like me to remove the statement? If you don't mind, could you help me identify the others which you would also like me to take care of? Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'and although its behavior is not completely understood, it does lead to' - what are the it and its referring to? the aggregate, the excessive repeats, the excessive repeating process, the glutamine?

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• link 'rational drug design'

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'toxic aggregate formation' - mention toxicity earlier, all we've been told previously about the aggregate is that it leads (with unknown number of intermediate steps) to cognitive decline.

  I moved the word "toxic" to the Alzheimer's section, when I first mention aggregation. It's complicated stuff, but I'll look more into the "unknown intermediate steps" between aggregation and cognitive decline. I think I've already given a sufficient amount of general information about these steps in the Alzheimer's section, but it's a good idea to give more details. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'the root causes of cancer' - will it tell us anything about the large numbers of cancers not associated with p53?

  It does contradict the earlier "More than half of all known cancers involve mutations of p53" statement! Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'to other p53-related diseases.' - link this?

  To what? Closest thing I found was P53#Role in disease. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'a form of IL-2 which is three hundred times more effective in its immune system role but carries fewer side effects' - this seems odd. if this new version is so much better why hasn't it evolved previously?

  The statement is true. Check the citations. Perhaps there wasn't enough evolutionary pressure to find this form of IL-2. Evolution doesn't always get it right. Jesse V. (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'which fulfills a variety of structural roles and is the most abundant protein in mammals' - swap the order of the 2 statements

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'This complexity and timescale make' - makes

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'hemagglutinin' links to influenza verson but then talks about HIV. Is this correct?

  Now just links to hemagglutinin. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I changed it back. The link was correct, it's just that the statement had some factual errors. I've now addressed them with a rewrite. I no longer talk about HIV specifically, but instead viruses in general. Jesse V. (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Researchers have also used Folding@home to study prime', 'Folding@home also took', 'The Pande lab has also used' - also, also, also.

  The word "also" occurs 41 times in text. I've reduced it to 32 times, and addressed those snippets. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• How did F@h do in SAMPL's blind experiment?

  I had a feeling someone was going to ask! :) In that particular instance, not too well unfortunately, since according to this statement by a scientist, they didn't get as much computations done as they would have liked due to technical difficulties, so they weren't confident that their predictions would be accurate. Their choice of a prediction algorithm apparently needed lots of computing power and the difficulties prevented them from meeting their expectations in that instance. Do you suppose ts that explanation worthy of mention? Jesse V. (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'This large and powerful network allows Folding@home to do work not possible any other way, though the Pande lab has collaborated with other molecular dynamics systems such as the Blue Gene supercomputer.' - how does the 2nd half follow from the 1st?

  I felt that they were related. I've seperated them, and moved the second statement to the Biomedical Research section. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Folding@home gained popularity early in its history.' - this rather follows from the steady growth statement earlier

  Good point! I've moved that steady growth statement to right before this one. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unconvinced by the 'PetaFLOPS milestones' section. Could the whole thing be better expressed as a graph of PetaFLOPS against time for F@h & the fastest supercomputer?

  Hmm. I suppose that's possible, though there are some important details in the paragraph that would be lost if the whole thing was a graph. I found Template:Line chart, do you think this would be good? Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Similar to other distributed' - similarly

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Donors / users - is there any difference?

  No. Rosetta@home does not use "donors" but instead uses "users". I suppose "participants" also works. Changes made. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'which are exceptionally demanding on a system' - so do users get more points for processing units that their system finds demanding?

  Good point. Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'A user can start their own team, or they can join an existing team,[3] but existing points cannot be transferred to a new team or username.' - is this important?

  It's a detail that clarifies how F@h's point system works. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'However, regardless of username or team affiliation, all contributions go to the same place and have the same scientific value' - you've just said that they don't all have the same scientific value

  Well I meant that the scientific value of a WU is not affected by your username or team affiliation. After some consideration, I realized that this statement adds very little, if anything to the section, so I've removed it. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'and third parties may also offer additional statistics on their own site' - is this important? May?

  Removed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'on the user's end' - at

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'A Work Unit (WU)' - this is not the 1st use of work unit and the abbreviation is not used again for a while

  I've removed the abbreviation entirely, and made sure "Work Unit" is consistently capitalized. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Once completed, the results are returned' - there's no mention of the simulation so this makes it sound like results are returned as soon as the download has completed

  True. Changed to "After the Work Unit has been completely processed," Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'before a final full release across all of FAH' - why abbreviate here when Folding@home has been written out in full so many times previously? There's more of these in the 'Client' section.

  I've removed the abbreviations. "FAH" is actually the more official abbreviation, so I don't use "F@h" in text. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Topics in the Folding@home forum can be used to differentiate between problematic hardware and an actual bad Work Unit' - Which topics? How can the first person to have the problem do this?

  I removed "Topics in". If a person encounters an error which has not yet been seen before, they can go to the forum, post about their problem, ask for help, and admins and regular volunteers can help narrow down the problem. The Pande lab will be reported, and meanwhile the person will mostly likely be told to wait and see if several more WUs fail on their hardware. If they do, it's bad hardware. If not, that was a bad WU. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'one of the fastest and most popular molecular dynamics software packages available' - we've just been told that it is a molecular dynamics program.

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Each client is the software with which the user interacts, and manages the other software components behind the scenes' - is the user or the client doing the managing?

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'the diversity and power of each hardware architecture provides Folding@home with the ability to efficiently complete many different types of simulations in a timely manner, (in a few weeks or months rather than years) which is of significant scientific value. Together, these clients allow Folding@home to address biomedical questions previously considered impossible to tackle computationally' - this type of thing has been said previously and probably belongs in another section.
• '(over port 8080, with 80 as an alternative)' - is this important?

  Rosetta@home is the only article about a distributed computing project which has achieved GA status (its now FA). It mentions it. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'It will upload' - what is it?

  The client. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• EULA - this abbreviation is never used again

  True. Removed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Folding@home's first client was a screensaver...' - can this be said earlier in the article?

  Yes it could, but where? I think it's in a pretty good spot actually. It's under the Client section and is mentioned last because it's not as important or relevant. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Folding@home also utilizes GPUs for distributed computing' - this has just been said in the previous section

  True. I thought it was a good way to open the section. However, I removed it. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'as of February 2012 GPU clients account for' - as it is no longer Feb this could be 'In February 2012 GPU clients accounted for'

  I've already updated the statement, but if the month is correct isn't it better to say "as of"? I see your point, I'm just debating about which one is better. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Small memory soft errors' - what are these?

  Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'over PCs, power which could not' - processing power

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'On March 23, 2007, the PS3 client was first released as a standalone application to the PlayStation 3, developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab' - I'd prefer 'A PS3 client that was developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab was released in March 2007.'

  Good idea. Changed to "The PS3 client was developed in a collaborative effort between Sony and the Pande lab and was first released as a standalone client on March 23, 2007." Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'as well as making Folding@home user friendly' - so is F@h not user friendly on other platforms?

  I guess you could conclude that! Clarified. Jesse V. (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'The PS3 also has the ability to...' - put this earlier in section

  Done. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'these CPU cores complete single WUs over 4x faster than the standard uniprocessor client' - even on a machine with only 2 cores? or do you mean that the multi-core client runs four times faster on the same machine than the single core client does?

  Sorry. On a machine with 4 CPU cores it's just about 4x faster than a uniprocessor client, as expected. 8 cores -> 8x faster. I used the term "proportionately faster" for lack of a alternative concise way of saying this. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'some of the publications from Folding@home would not have been possible without this computing power' - why? wouldn't it have just taken them longer?

  Yes, but if a simulation is going to take an impractical amount of time, they don't start them. There's a certain point when the simulation just takes too long. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Although it does not natively support the Linux operating system' & 'Although the clients performed well in Unix-based operating systems such as Linux and Mac's OS-X' - I had assumed that the 'it' refered to F@h.

  Oh. It's actually the GPU client. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Despite these difficulties, SMP1 generated significant results that would have been impossible otherwise' - something very similar to this was said in the 1st paragraph of the section

  True. Fixed. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'The SMP2 client also supported a bonus points system, which non-linearly rewards additional points' - is this different to the points system mentioned earlier?

  No it's the same. I didn't realize that there were duplicate statements. I removed this last statement that you quoted. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'originally required minimum of'

  Changed to "originally required a minimum of" Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'which that had'

  Oops! Changed to "that had". Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'Comparison to other molecular systems' - why is it only compared to 2 systems?

  I've seen the discussions where people have asked for comparisons between F@h and Rosetta@home, and other discussions for F@h vs Anton. I haven't read or heard of any other comparisons. Jesse V. (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'some Folding@home's projects'

  Clarified. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• 'It is probable that a combination of Anton's and FAH's simulation methods would provide both a well-sampled simulation and completely cover the protein's phase space' - so at present F@h does not completely cover the protein's phase space? JMiall₰ 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  I've commented that out and tried a different phrasing until I can double-check and find out more. Jesse V. (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)