 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Notability
editThis article does not assert that the topic is notable. That is not to say that it is not notable, but remember that notability on wikipedia depends on a topic being noticed in a substantial way in reliable secondary sources. The article has no such sources as all references are to papers by the Truhlar Group. It needs a review article or book, not from the Truhlar Group, that says that these functions are a significant advance. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the revision. I've added a few references in the introduction to address the issue of notability. I could add more if needed, but I prefer to keep the page as simple as possible. --Peverati (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree. The statement that the functionals are immensely useful is IMHO much too strong and unfounded. To my understanding there is nothing revolutionary about the Minnesota functional series, except the sheer number of functionals published (I count 14 Minnesota exchange-correlation functionals in libxc). This statement should be replaced with a more neutral one, such as "These functionals can be used in traditional quantum chemistry and solid state physics calculations."
Otherwise, the conflict of interest by the original author (who has been intimately involved in the development of half of the functional series) is less visible. Still, claims as good for transition metals, inorganic and organometallics or for main group thermochemistry should be substantiated by citations.
Susilehtola (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
PS. The N12 and N12-SX functionals are missing from the list.
It reads rather like an advert, especially considering that even popular functionals like PBE don't have their own wikipedia pages. A Minnesota functional (M06-2X) does, however, come 12th in this (slightly unscientific) 2013 survey of DFT functionals: http://www.marcelswart.eu/dft-poll/newsitem.pdf Chips (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Since one article on one of the Minnesota functionals has received more than 10,000 citations according to Google Scholar, I think that the topic is notable. Moreover, since the set of functionals is such an alphabet soup, as an end-user I find this page very helpful. 199.98.17.171 (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Minnesota functionals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20130411014100/http://erkale.googlecode.com/ to http://erkale.googlecode.com/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402112229/https://repo.ctcc.no/projects/xcfun to https://repo.ctcc.no/projects/xcfun
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality
editThe neutrality issues in the article appear to me to have been well-addressed and I propose removing the neutrality disputation message at this time.
In terms of notability, I'm seeing on Google Scholar that one of the Minnesota functionals papers has been cited 13,924 times, which speaks for itself. --KeeYou Flib (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)