Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:05, 9 July 2008 [1].

History of timekeeping devices

Nominator(s):
User:AndonicO, User:J-stan, User:Zginder, User:Phoenix-wiki

This is the second

Tzatziki Squad collaboration up for your scrutiny. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Article stats:

Keilana 308
AndonicO 220
Bibliomaniac15 211
Malleus Fatuorum 161
Grimhelm 132
Anonymous Dissident 122
Qst 110
J-stan 88

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see my username fairly high up there, but I do not consider myself to be a significant contributor to this article; I only made a few copyedits after I stumbled across this FAC. --
talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I beg to differ; you did a fair bit of (excellent) work. · AndonicO Engage. 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<Chat moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive, and very interesting. Deserves to go to the main page. Congratulations! Idontknow610TM 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay.
Working through the reference stuff now.
talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I never struck anything.
talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicO Engage. 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's wrong with putting a line below that it's been addressed to your satisfaction or a reply, and then when I feel it's addressed it can be struck out. The system has worked pretty well for me at FAC for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, feel free to unstrike (and I won't strike any more out). · AndonicO Engage. 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow
WP:FAC instructions) to correctly thread responses and avoid striking or altering other editors' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Ealdgyth, its no problem. I wasn't offended, only clarifying. :) Best,
talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Resolved comments from Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood

Comments - Gah, I really should join Tzatziki one of these days - I planned to a long time ago. Others will probably catch MOS issues so I'll focus on prose. I'm really, really picky about one MOS thing, though - why are years linked and centuries/decades not? Generally it's the other way around.

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - prose looks good except for the one remaining unaddressed up above (the one biblio responded to), address Tony's issues below though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quiteOppose. Neutral 1a

  • The prose is mostly good, but needs a careful copy-edit throughout before it reaches the required "professional" standard. I did a few spot-checks.
    • I've changed a few pet-hates like upon and in order to.
    • Caption: "water thief."—The dot must come after the quotemark (MOS).
    • "While the Greeks and Romans did much to advance water clock technology, shadow clocks were not abandoned."—Why the passive voice? "they did not abandon ...".
    • "Others also wrote of the sundial in the mathematics and literature of the period."—"Also" is redundant and has the opposite effect to that intended (it weakens the flow).
    • Unnecessary passive again: "Later, the largest sundial ever built was constructed by the Romans". And more. You need a good reason to use the passive voice, and it's much too much in evidence throughout. TONY (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder—you may have fixed the issues I mentioned, but I made it clear they were spot-checks only. I was expecting a copy-edit throughout the article. And you haven't even fixed the overuse of the passive voice: it took four seconds for me to find "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Do you know how to change it to active? "Other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims, developed shadow clocks during this time". Passive is all over the place. And immediately above that:

There were also other problems, however, which were never solved. One of these was temperature, as water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze. Another, that the water clock did not account for the fact that the length of days and nights changes throughout the year. Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons.

Keep striving for simplicity and plainness in the prose:

However, other problems were never solved: one was temperature, since water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze; another was that the water clock did not account for the changing length of days and nights throughout the year, leading to variable accuracy.

Can you coopt a word-nerd or two from the edit history pages of similar articles (try FAs first)? You can tell who's a nerd from their edit summaries. Ask nicely, and you might strike a few new Wikifriends who'll be collaborators now and in the future. TONY (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through it one more time, once I've finished with the refs Ealdgyth pointed out above (because the content is likely to change a bit, or the wording may need to be altered). · AndonicO Engage. 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Resolved comments from Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama)

Comments Since I know how much of a pain it was to fix all the refs at Cannon, I'll make the appropriate changes myself. I do have some other concerns that I believe should be addressed.

  • Ref 8 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 9 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 10 is a book. I've converted this to {{cite book}}. One question, how is 10a used as a reference for "Among the first confirmed shadow clocks were ancient Egyptian obelisks, first constructed around 3500 BC; the oldest existing sundial—not in the form of an obelisk—is made of green schist, and is also Egyptian"? I couldn't find anything from this reference to corroborate this statement.
  • Ref 12 – no page numbers.
    • Listed page numbers for a, b, and c; I couldn't find d, and I couldn't find the words "Arab" or "engineer" in the book (using the Gbooks search function), so I removed the third instance. · AndonicO Engage. 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 – no page numbers.
    • Done (apparently: refs 14-22 have page numbers). · AndonicO Engage. 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the ref numbers might be off by one or two (I believe a ref was added/removed after my edits). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that's why I checked such a wide range. I believe more were added than removed. · AndonicO Engage. 09:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 24 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 29 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 31 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 34 – what makes this reliable?
    • I'm guessing that it's UNESCO; I can't find the article in their archives, though (they only go back to 1996). · AndonicO Engage. 00:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 – no page numbers.
    • Either this was #59, or someone already fixed a lot of page numbers... Done? · AndonicO Engage. 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48 – no page numbers.
    • I'm running blind at this point, but the next ref without page number after the above was #61; done. · AndonicO Engage. 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 51 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 53 – no page numbers.
    • Unreliable (a dictionary of sorts; the part that was cited was an old version of our article): removed. · AndonicO Engage. 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 55 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 56 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 64 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 65 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 70 – what makes this reliable?
  • Ref 74 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 75 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 88 – what makes this reliable?
  • Ref 89 – no page numbers.
  • Ref 90 – no page numbers.

This is it for now. I'll leave more prose-related comments in the future (maybe). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped saying which refs I fixed, since it was somewhat pointless... anyway, I went through all the books, and tried to find page numbers. I found them for all, except those which weren't on Gbooks (around five or so, I think), and a PDF document at the end. · AndonicO Engage. 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, --
talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comments. I don't think this article is quite there yet, and would benefit from someone going through it again. Just a few examples:
  • "In the 20th century, new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators ...". When were the later quartz oscillators invented?
  • "While accurate, shadow clocks relied on the sun ...". Shouldn't that be "Although' accurate ..."?
  • "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), proving that they were used in ancient Egypt, possibly earlier than anywhere else." This reads very awkwardly to me. Why not something like "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), suggesting that they were first used in ancient Egypt."?
  • "... hourglasses could be reused by turning it over again." There really ought not to be simple grammatical errors at this stage.
  • "... making the reading of the clock more precise and facile." Are you happy with the word "facile" here? Not sure that I am.
  • "Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons." Shouldn't that be "clock's accuracy"?
  • "... unlike water, this element would not freeze under normal circumstances". Makes it sound like mercury refused to freeze, rather than simply did not freeze.
  • "The oldest working clock in the world is
    Salisbury cathedral clock
    , which dates from about 1386, and has most of its original parts." Leave out the part between the commas to see why this doesn't work.
  • "a popular watch of most American airmen was the A-11" Wouldn't something like "the A-11 was a popular watch with most American airman" be better?
  • ... it does not account for leap seconds or other corrections which are periodically employed to systems such as Universal Coordinated Time"> Should that be applied instead of employed? Or employed by?
  • "When turned over, a flow of grains of sand passed from the upper one to the lower through the hole. As the downward current of sand was constant ..." Perhaps a good example of Fowler's elegant variation. Current and flow don't quite mean the same thing, so don't be afraid to repeat flow by saying "As the downward flow of sand was constant...".
  • I echo Tony's point about overuse of the passive voice. Sentences like this: "The oldest documentation of the water clock is from the tomb inscription ..." make the prose feel stodgey.

--

talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only fixed a few things I stumbled across. I'll try to take a more thorough look through the article later. --
talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm about ready to support now if one additional thing is fixed, consistent use of metric->imperial conversions. From Early Western mechanical clocks: "box-like iron frame, measuring about 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) square". From Candle clocks: "each 12 inches (30 cm) high". From Early mechanical clocks: "Zhang implemented the changes into his clock tower, which was approximately ten meters tall, with escapements keeping the clock turning". --
talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I fixed the one you mentioned and a couple others; I think that's it. · AndonicO Engage. 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Enough has been done to the prose to satisfy me. --
    talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly hi! 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, minor glitchs easily spotted. Please ask Tony1 to revisit and consider asking User:Epbr123 to run through the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing quickly at the article, the last sentence evidences copyedit needs:
  • In ths US, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites in 6 orbits around the Earth on a 12-hourly schedule.[129]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now? · AndonicO Engage. 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did someone go through the entire article? (When I can easily spot prose issues, it's not a good sign, because I'm not a wordnerd.) You've changed it to twelve hours and 6 orbits, exactly the opposite of
WP:MOSNUM, so a check throughout is needed. Have you asked someone like Epbr123 to run through, as well as gotten another set of eyes on the prose, given that I easily spotted errors? There are redlinked dates in the citations; do you scroll through your entire article to check for errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:MOSNUM
is in dispute on this issue (not by me); it is only stable because Noetica is on hiatus. The present division between one and two digit numbers is a rule of thumb, and one of several possible ones; it has a dozen exceptions because it is only a rule of thumb. In this case, the satellites and the orbits should both be spelled out, or both figures because they are related; and twelve should probably depend on whether the orbit is exactly half a day (spell out as count), or approximate (figure, as approximation to a continuous quantity.

The writing's in better shape now, but I see little problems at random, such as:

Although similar to the candle clock, incense clocks burned evenly, and without a flame; therefore, they were more accurate, and safer for indoor use.[48] Several types of incense clock have been found, the most common being the incense stick and incense seal ones.[49][50] An incense stick clock comprised of an incense stick with calibrations;[50] most were elaborate, sometimes having threads, with weights attached, at even intervals

Which two commas to remove?

And:

  • "An example of a candle clock" (caption)—which three words to remove?
  • "its history in China and time of its invention remain unknown" TONY (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed the commas, fixed the caption, and Malleus took care of the incense clock prose. · AndonicO Engage. 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Epbr123 to do a copyedit, if he can't, perhaps Tony could give it a quick polish? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony doesn't do polishes. He feels that his limited time is better spent by being spread over more articles than it would be if he were to focus too much on any one. --
talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
And, he's pretty busy trying to copyedit guideline and policy pages, and write and copyedit the Dispatches in all his spare time. Smoothest is to have articles copyedited before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank55:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/History_of_timekeeping_devices&oldid=1126594830"