![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The sheer number of images is cramping up the text. We need to make a decision on what images to add in and where to put them. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed to "History of timekeeping," as not all methods are devices (i.e. calendars), and "devices" is a bit of an odd word for clocks. · AndonicO Hail! 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I was planning to put forward the penultimate review, see if the article matched it, and if so pass it WITH THE PROVISO that I returned in say 4 weeks to look again and see if anything detrimental to the original article has been done if so I would delist it. Crude I know but the only way I thought. I must say I have enjoyed the squad adopting an article and through obvious hard work and genuine interest in learning and getting knowledge out there improve this article well beyond its original limitations. Congrats to all involved. You lot are proving to be one of the hardest reviews but by far the most entertaining and learning one as well.
Many ancient civilizations used the motion of the sun, moon, planets and stars to determine time, date and seasons.[5][6] It is likely that the first calendars likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions or some research leads to the proposition that... read better and still get the point across. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
daytime leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. Done.
barleycorn leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. No such link.
images:
Good Bits: the natural progression from calendars to time pieces very well done. the order of the sections reflects the development of the pieces. END Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent piece of work Both you as editors and I as reviewer have run through the mill on this one.
I will keep a watch on this article it is growing wonderfully. I may drop in bits that I find to the talk page so Tzatziki Squad can add or not. It is a big complex one to take to FA; I wish you well. Thank you. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
it is great to watch this article grow as it is. For images of clocks - escapements etc have a look at [1]. They might be useful or not. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to see this article through to FA, but I'm a bit unsure of the direction it's taking. I know I'm bringing up some old points again, but I just want them clarified.
On the whole, these are just consistency issues, but we should clarify them to improve the article and avoid them recurring in future collaborations. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on the whole thing.
Hi there, I took the liberty to make some formatting changes as I saw a lot of information overlap and unnecessary categorisation. Of course if you don't agree, the rv button is nearby :-) -- Avg 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about refs 54 and 55? I can't find anything on that book. · AndonicO Engage 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). HTH—
Rod
talk
10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that a sundial is by definition a dial that is a shadow clock. Shadow clocks that are not round are not sundials. I if am right this article needs to be changed. Z gin der 2008-04-19T12:48Z ( UTC)
A lot of the article is very focused on Western devices while ignoring the Eastern, oriental ones. I've started the China and Incense clock sections, but I'd like some help chasing down sources. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we need a more thorough and specific status report based on the current state of the article. How are we going? What more needs to be done? What aspects of the article should we now be focusing on improving? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For the incense clock section, I found a great book on Google Books: The Trail of Time: Time Measurement with Incense in East Asia by Silvio A. Bedini. Unfortunately, the preview does not cover incense clocks, mostly consisting of the first chapter discussing Asian time measurement in general. Is it possible for one of us to procure the book and use it to cite? bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should note that there have been many different systems of measurement of time; see the articles linked from systems of measurement, such as Chinese units of measurement. -- Beland ( talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the footnotes have been merged together, so that they give all the publisher information but don't give any of the page references. (See here). This will be a serious problem if this is to move toward FA status. Referring to page numbers quoted is key to Wikipedia articles' verifiability. We had agreed earlier on this talk page (and it was also brought up in the archived peer review) to use a Notes/References system, keeping the footnotes short and putting the full book information in the Bibliography. Today's Featured Article, for example, the Battle of Blenheim, shows exactly how this should be done.
The further reading section could still be useful if kept separate, so perhaps we could work it into a mixed system like this:
Author, page number. Eg.
The full title and publisher information for books cited in the footnotes. Eg.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)Books that were not cited in the article, but which would be of direct relevance or of good use to any readers interested in doing further research after reading the article. Eg.
The argument for keeping "References" and "Further reading" separate is that some books cited in the footnotes are not of direct relevance to the topic (such as Europe: A History and The Measure of All Things). Books under "Further reading" should ideally be about some aspect of the History of Timekeeping Devices.
I won't be able to do this restoration and reformatting myself, but I feel it should be done before it's too late (ie. before it requires hours of sifting through the History to restore the old notes). Obviously websites used as sources only need to be mentioned in the footnotes section. Aside from that, I think most of the page numbers for the books can be found in the History link I mentioned at the start. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
The sheer number of images is cramping up the text. We need to make a decision on what images to add in and where to put them. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be renamed to "History of timekeeping," as not all methods are devices (i.e. calendars), and "devices" is a bit of an odd word for clocks. · AndonicO Hail! 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I was planning to put forward the penultimate review, see if the article matched it, and if so pass it WITH THE PROVISO that I returned in say 4 weeks to look again and see if anything detrimental to the original article has been done if so I would delist it. Crude I know but the only way I thought. I must say I have enjoyed the squad adopting an article and through obvious hard work and genuine interest in learning and getting knowledge out there improve this article well beyond its original limitations. Congrats to all involved. You lot are proving to be one of the hardest reviews but by far the most entertaining and learning one as well.
Many ancient civilizations used the motion of the sun, moon, planets and stars to determine time, date and seasons.[5][6] It is likely that the first calendars likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions or some research leads to the proposition that... read better and still get the point across. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
daytime leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. Done.
barleycorn leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. No such link.
images:
Good Bits: the natural progression from calendars to time pieces very well done. the order of the sections reflects the development of the pieces. END Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an excellent piece of work Both you as editors and I as reviewer have run through the mill on this one.
I will keep a watch on this article it is growing wonderfully. I may drop in bits that I find to the talk page so Tzatziki Squad can add or not. It is a big complex one to take to FA; I wish you well. Thank you. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
it is great to watch this article grow as it is. For images of clocks - escapements etc have a look at [1]. They might be useful or not. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to see this article through to FA, but I'm a bit unsure of the direction it's taking. I know I'm bringing up some old points again, but I just want them clarified.
On the whole, these are just consistency issues, but we should clarify them to improve the article and avoid them recurring in future collaborations. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my opinion on the whole thing.
Hi there, I took the liberty to make some formatting changes as I saw a lot of information overlap and unnecessary categorisation. Of course if you don't agree, the rv button is nearby :-) -- Avg 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about refs 54 and 55? I can't find anything on that book. · AndonicO Engage 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). HTH—
Rod
talk
10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe that a sundial is by definition a dial that is a shadow clock. Shadow clocks that are not round are not sundials. I if am right this article needs to be changed. Z gin der 2008-04-19T12:48Z ( UTC)
A lot of the article is very focused on Western devices while ignoring the Eastern, oriental ones. I've started the China and Incense clock sections, but I'd like some help chasing down sources. bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we need a more thorough and specific status report based on the current state of the article. How are we going? What more needs to be done? What aspects of the article should we now be focusing on improving? -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
For the incense clock section, I found a great book on Google Books: The Trail of Time: Time Measurement with Incense in East Asia by Silvio A. Bedini. Unfortunately, the preview does not cover incense clocks, mostly consisting of the first chapter discussing Asian time measurement in general. Is it possible for one of us to procure the book and use it to cite? bibliomaniac 15 Do I have your trust? 04:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This article should note that there have been many different systems of measurement of time; see the articles linked from systems of measurement, such as Chinese units of measurement. -- Beland ( talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that the footnotes have been merged together, so that they give all the publisher information but don't give any of the page references. (See here). This will be a serious problem if this is to move toward FA status. Referring to page numbers quoted is key to Wikipedia articles' verifiability. We had agreed earlier on this talk page (and it was also brought up in the archived peer review) to use a Notes/References system, keeping the footnotes short and putting the full book information in the Bibliography. Today's Featured Article, for example, the Battle of Blenheim, shows exactly how this should be done.
The further reading section could still be useful if kept separate, so perhaps we could work it into a mixed system like this:
Author, page number. Eg.
The full title and publisher information for books cited in the footnotes. Eg.
{{
cite book}}
: More than one of |author=
and |last=
specified (
help)Books that were not cited in the article, but which would be of direct relevance or of good use to any readers interested in doing further research after reading the article. Eg.
The argument for keeping "References" and "Further reading" separate is that some books cited in the footnotes are not of direct relevance to the topic (such as Europe: A History and The Measure of All Things). Books under "Further reading" should ideally be about some aspect of the History of Timekeeping Devices.
I won't be able to do this restoration and reformatting myself, but I feel it should be done before it's too late (ie. before it requires hours of sifting through the History to restore the old notes). Obviously websites used as sources only need to be mentioned in the footnotes section. Aside from that, I think most of the page numbers for the books can be found in the History link I mentioned at the start. -- Grimhelm ( talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)