Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daylight saving time

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 02:07, 1 June 2007.

Daylight saving time edit

Self-nomination. I rewrote most of this article in preparation for the March 2007 Y2K7 issue, and now that the spring-forward festivities are over its contents have settled down; it's pretty much just copyediting recently. The article had a peer review in March and after another review reached Good Article status in late March. Since GA status, the article has added images and has gotten other spruceups for clarity. Eubulides 00:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The images in the references section look rather awkward... --W.marsh 00:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "awkward" do you mean the images' placement, or their contents? Assuming it's the placement, can you say what's awkward about it? Perhaps Wikipedia generates a page that mishandles placement with <ref>[[Image:…]]{{cite…}}</ref> with your browser; if so, it'd be helpful if you could describe the symptoms on your screen. I suppose one possible workaround is to go to a single-column references instead of two-column; would that help for your browser? Eubulides 01:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the bottom image overlaps some of the reference text, and they are off-line with eachother in the first column... I doubt they're displaying the way they're supposed to. I just use FireFox 2.0 and Windows on this computer so it's not some exotic setup. Feedback from other people is welcome though... I could be the only person having the problem, it's happened before. --W.marsh 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • For what it's worth, the article appears to format fine using IE6. Chubbles 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I running current version FireFox 2.0.0.3 and having no issues, the images are formatted as "thumbs" without size which defaults to your preferences settings. Suggest you try changing your settings. 04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, I have reworked image placement, following JRG's suggestions below. Please try it again with your browser. Eubulides 02:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Single POV article that glosses over negative aspects, totally ignores political aspects of daylight saving. Also it discuss the subject from Northern Hemisphere POV by saying typically daylight saving starts in March and finishes in October. Gnangarra 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw oppose though I wont support as I still read the article as being bias to the Northern hemisphere, and presenting positive POV to daylight saving. Gnangarra 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like you're reacting to the original article and not to the revisions as a result of the FAC comments. I just now counted the number of words devoted to the pro and con side. Counting references, currently it's about 1200 words pro and 1400 words con, the rest neither (using the Unix "wc" command to count words). So if anything, the article is slightly biased against DST quantity-wise, though these numbers are approximate (it's not always easy to judge whether a statement is "pro" or "con"). You haven't cited any specific examples of bias; perhaps if you reread the article carefully now you'll see what I mean about the relative quantities of arguments. Eubulides 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as northern hemisphere POV, DST was invented in the northern hemisphere and I'd guess 80%–90% of the people who observe DST live in the northern hemisphere, so it is appropriate for a balanced article to devote most of its space to northern-hemisphere history and examples. Eubulides 05:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which negative aspects are glossed over? Benefits and drawbacks talks about both positive and negative aspects from a neutral POV; if there's some specific coverage you disagree with please identify it. Origin, Economic effects, and Health discuss U.K., US, and Kazakh DST politics at some length; there is not space enough in the article to discuss every political situation in every country. Nowhere does the page say that DST typically starts in March; on the contrary, When it starts and ends says DST starts in spring, and gives both northern- and southern-hemisphere examples. Eubulides 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In saying it doesnt cover the politics, what it missing is a specific section that discusses how various regions find its implimentation contentious take Western Australia 3 referendums which resulted in oppose yet its been introduced, Queensland where after referendum it doesnt occur. The throw away referral to southern hemisphere "Beginning and ending dates are the reverse in the southern hemisphere" after detailing the northern hemisphere (North America, and Europe) followed by a single southern hemisphere country example. In Australia there three different change over periods they arent reflective of any of the examples. The wording of the article gives emphasis to positives with lots of references and examples, yet the negative side isnt presented with equivalent strength. Gnangarra 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daylight saving time cannot cover DST political disputes all over the world. The topic is way too large; there are dozens of such disputes going on at any given time. The particular DST controversy you're referring to is discussed in other Wikipedia pages where it is apropos, namely in Time in Australia and (with less detail) in Daylight saving time around the world, both of which Daylight saving time wikilinks to.
  • The vast majority of people who observe DST live in the northern hemisphere, so it's appropriate for the examples to focus on the north: if anything, the southern hemisphere is currently overrepresented compared to the relative sizes of the DST-observing populations. That being said, if replacing the Chilean example with an Australian one would address your concerns, I'd be happy to do that.
  • As for "the negative side isnt presented with equivalent strength", I'm afraid I still don't follow. As far as I can tell, all the main arguments of the negative side are presented under Benefits and drawbacks, and are presented with the same force as the positive side. If you count the words devoted to both sides I think you'll find that the word count is roughly equal. The lead for Benefits and drawbacks gives slightly more words to the negative side, and entire subsections (Computer clocks, Complexity) are given over to the negative side. If some argument for the negative side is missing or is weak, please identify it specifically.
  • Since you didn't mention the topic in your followup I take it you now agree that the page does not say that DST typically starts in March? If so, we've addressed the second half of your original comment, with only the first half to go.
Eubulides 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a new section Politics which I hope addresses your complaint about coverage of political issues. Please let me know what you think.
Eubulides 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - I won't go as far as Gnangarra, but the political debate on daylight saving is missing from this article and it shows. There is a lot of political debate to do with whether or not a country should introduce DST, and I think it's needed more than just the benefits and drawbacks of DST. Some information on DST debates and controversies that represent a worldwide view, as a separate section, would be desirable.
    • Also, the "When it starts and ends" section, for the five or so paragraphs that it is, has only two references. That's not enough.
    • The images in the footnote sections just look weird. Move them somewhere else or at least put them at the top of the section. JRG 12:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I guess it's two against one for the politics, so I have followed all your suggestions. A new section Politics covers the political issues and attempts to use a global perspective, albeit focusing on English-language locations. When it starts and ends now has eight references. I moved the images to the top of the footnote sections (the images belong with the footnotes, not with the main text). Please let me know what you think. Eubulides 07:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok - all fixed now. Support. JRG 02:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the southeastern corner of BC shown as not now having DST? I've just been to Fernie, where Alberta time is used. Alberta moved to DST in mid-March. Tony 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're wrong, aren't they? Can you correct? Tony 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aack, you're right. Rereading the INMS web site, it says Fernie observes MST during winter and MDT during summer. I'll fix the image. Thanks for reporting the problem. Eubulides 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please check all date linking thoughout, per WP:MOSNUM. Month-day combos are linked. Footnotes need formatting work. Some dates are wikilinked, others aren't, so date formatting isn't consistent to user preferences or anything else. Since some of the dates are linked, they should all be. Some websources are missing last access dates. "When it starts and ends" is not an encyclopedic section heading. Too many short, stubby sections (for example, Social choice is two sentences). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. To take your remaining points in order: I count 22 uses of the "cite web" template, and all 22 have access dates. What am I missing? Are you talking about other templates like "cite book" or "cite news"? Eubulides 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed "When it starts and ends" to "How DST is observed". Eubulides 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed "Social choice" and merged its contents into a neighboring section. Likewise for "Crime" and for "Computer clocks". If you see other short sections that need this treatment please let me know. Eubulides 08:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I struck my Oppose since the important items have been addressed, but ... the "How" or "When" in a section heading is still awkward and unencyclopedic. I changed the section heading, but still not sure it's quite there yet. On the book and news sources for which you have provided convenience links, it would be helpful if you gave a last access date — if the links go dead in the future, someone may need to find them elsewhere or in the internet archive. Convenience links aren't required for hard-print sources, but if you've given them, it's helpful to indicate when they were accessed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks for explaining. I just now changed the heading to "Observance practices" which I hope is a bit clearer and is anyway more concise. I added accessdate= to every citation that has url=. After you last edited the article I also removed one more stubby section ("Associated practices") and incorporated its contents elsewhere. If you see remaining sections that are too short please let me know. Eubulides 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my own nomination, after rereading the above (which so far boils down to one "support" and zero "oppose"s). DST is a dry topic, so I'm not surprised to see so few supporters; a DST article is not nearly as much fun to review as an article (say) about a hated secondary character from a well-known TV series. Nor am I surprised to see initial opposition (thankfully withdrawn), as DST is controversial and almost everybody is annoyed by it, even its supporters. However, all the specific comments have been addressed, and the article can't get much more comprehensive, accurate, or neutral than it already is. Every encyclopedia worth the name must cover DST, and this is by far the best article on DST in any English-language reference, either online or printed (and trust me, I've read all the major ones). Eubulides 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Support Please review WP:MoS regarding thumbnailed images and pixel sizing and correct accordingly. Other than that, it appears to be a fine article. Correct those image problems or adequately explain and you have my support (there are valid reasons to resize images, such as odd shapes, but not all of them and not in such odd increments). Issues addressed to my satisfaction. I recommend adding comments for clarification. — BQZip01 — talk 04:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 3 images whose sizes are specified are maps (or in one case, a figure) with unusually wide aspect ratios for images, and with a lot of fine detail, such that the default width doesn't work well. In the DST page patched to use the default width the 3 images are hard to see on my screen with the default image width: originally Daylight saving time did it that way (i.e., used the default thumbnail width) but other editors objected to the tiny images, which is why the thumbnails have sizes now. All 3 images fall under the WP:MOS#Images exceptions for "images with extreme aspect ratios" and "detailed maps, diagrams or charts". Any explicit widths should not be made any narrower than 300px because users can set their images to be 300px wide by default, and the specified width should not be narrower than the default. Eubulides 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for funny widths like 324px, I was trying to use a width that was 1/2 the natural 1:1 image size, but you're right and that's overkill. So I just now changed the explicit widths to 300px. There is one exception: one image is at 301px because the 300px copy is corrupted in the Wikimedia database. If you look at the version with 300px thumbnails you'll see that the image captioned "Time zones often lie west…" is corrupted, and is blank. Changing the size to 301px works around the bug. I left a comment in the Daylight saving time source explaining why it's 301 not 300 pixels. Eubulides 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fabulous response and reasoning. I recommend putting these as comments within the actual article to prevent anyone else from making the same assumptions (not required, but recommended). Outside of that looks great and I've changed my recommendation accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 15:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I added HTML comments as per your suggestion. Eubulides 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Meets all the criteria, in my view. The article has improved hugely this year - nice work. -- Avenue 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Daylight_saving_time&oldid=1138458560"