Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 02:05, 9 July 2008 [1].

History of timekeeping devices

edit
Nominator(s): User:Keilana, User:Bibliomaniac15, User:Anonymous Dissident, User:Grimhelm, User:Qst, 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. --Malleus Fatuorum (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. Qst (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. Qst (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:TALK guidelines (and 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, Qst (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.

  • "*The* history of timekeeping devices"? Why "the"? It sounds as if this is the only history of timekeeping devices in all... well, time. Why not "this"? Note that I might be wrong; this might be convention.
    • Mainly because "this" would be more direct to the article; the article itself is focusing on the entire history of timekeeping devices across the world, so "this" would sound as if it was referring to a specific area. (Note, that wasn't a good explanation, but hopefully you'll understand.) Qst (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system developed then—which remains in use today—was sexagesimal." - the em dashes disrupt the flow of the prose; so strong a disjunction isn't needed. Commas will do.
  • "They were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, however, their use continued outside of Egypt, especially in Greece." - not a complete sentence.
  • "Mechanical clocks became necessary because relying on the sun had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear days, cast no shadow at night, and the length of hours varied depending on the season." - if one is skimming the lead, that looks like three things. Suggest rephrasing as "[...] had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear as they cast no shadow at night and the length of hours varied depending on the season."
  • "Mechanical clocks, in all of their varieties, were the standard modern timekeeping device." - "were"?
  • "From the turn of the 14th century, until the middle of the 20th, they contained various escapements, which transferred rotational energy into discrete motions." - "until the middle of the 20th" doesn't need to be preceded by a comma.
  • Redundancy: "In the twentieth century, a variety of new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators, atomic clocks, and the common wristwatch."
  • More redundancy: "Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device, such as a falling weight or rotating beater." - "some" is not really needed, it could be replaced with an article like "a".
  • "This has inspired several modern replicas, including some in London's Science Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution." - no comma needed before "and the Smithsonian...".
  • Still more redundancy: "The astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace, among some other individuals, modified the dial of his pocket watch to decimal time."

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

  • Consistency is missing in a few places; for instance, page numbers need to either be "p 10", "p. 10", or "p.10", but not all of them.
  • The following reference is completely broken and shows as plain text: {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Clock|title=Merriam-Webster Online:

Gary King (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.
    • "By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac15 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, is 3500 BC for the obelisks cited (all the refs are citing the sundial)? · AndonicO Engage. 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I meant ref 9a. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Removed: that made no sense whatsoever, and it didn't say sundials were invented in Egypt. · AndonicO Engage. 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I removed 9b, as well: also irrelevant. · AndonicO Engage. 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • 9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • 9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicO Engage. 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, I was under the impression that there were other refs for that sentence. Guess I mistook that for the three other refs that surrounded 9a. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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, --Malleus Fatuorum (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.

--Malleus Fatuorum (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. --Malleus Fatuorum (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". --Malleus Fatuorum (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]
  • Oppose per criterion three:
    • Image:Susong.gif: Image asserts it is redrawn (i.e. derivative) of an original found in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a work very much under copyright. Where is support for the claim of publication under the Free Art License ({{FAL}})?
    • Image:Salisbury 02.jpg claims to be "by Jason Hopwood"; uploader, however, is "Jasenlee" (i.e. Jasen Lee). How can we confirm uploader and author are the same person or that Jason Hopwood has indeed released the image under the indicated license?
    • Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG: what is the copyright status of the painting? Freedom of Panorama in Poland is limited to "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" (i.e. outside). If the painting is under copyright, this is a derivative work.
    • Image:Relogio stDumont.jpg: appears to be a copyvio (see here).
    • Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The painting is too old to be copyrighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are pretending claiming to uphold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to attack mischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have had cause in the past to point out your misunderstanding of international copyright law, or have you forgotten?[2] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 2 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.
  • If there are two satellites in each orbit, it would add information and simplify the sentence to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two unrelated 12s in the same sentence are a pity. Best to recast, but if that is unfeasible (I don't see how myself) spell one out for clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Malleus Fatuorum (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:

  • "Can you coopt a word-nerd?"...Nerds are us.
  • Feel free to revert any of my edits, I don't bite. Much. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer that most of the first sentence be deleted, but I don't have any particular advice on how to incorporate the title or what you want to say, so I left it. It just doesn't add much, and feels a little "book reporty" to me.
  • My feeling is that we should lowercase most of the occurrences of "sun" and "moon", but this is a matter of style. The first occurrences should probably be capitalized, but North American style guides, and Wikipedia, prefer what's called the "down style" of capitalization, which means roughly, find any excuse you can to lowercase. This issue came up recently in Roman Catholic Church, where the thinking was that the faithful might be offended by "the church", so it was often left capitalized, but we don't have any faithful sun-worshippers here to offend, and TCMOS, AP Stylebook and NYTM all recommend even lowercasing such religious terms at the first opportunity where it's clear which church you're referring to. The analogy here is, as soon as you know which sun you're referring to, it's time to start lowercasing it. Having said that ... does anyone feel strongly that you need to uppercase Sun and Moon throughout? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do. It would be disrespectful not to. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted virtually no material from the lead, but I tightened it down to 2 paragraphs, which leaves room for a 3rd paragraph summarizing more from the article. WP:LEAD suggests a 3rd paragraph would be nice.
  • I don't hate passive voice as much as some (*cough* Tony), but I don't like it either. However, I don't want to take the time to do the research to figure out who the subjects would be if I removed the passive voice; if you guys know, then please remove some of the passive voice that I left.
  • "the first device able to measure time within the span of a day": I wasn't quite sure what this meant. (I will avoid the usual snarky copyeditor comments such as, "Is there time which is not within the span of a day?") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it down to Incense clocks, but I'm out of time, sorry. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try to change the lead a bit, per your suggestions. As for "Sun," "Moon," and "Church," I think it's best to leave them capitalized for correctness. Fixed the "span of day" sentence. · AndonicO Engage. 12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article by Goudsmit et al in the further reading section is missing a title. Epbr123 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dank, I don't "hate" passives per se; occasionally they're suitable. But here, passives were scattered all over the place in quite unnecessary ways. TONY (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay...I don't like passive voice much, and Tony likes it a little less than I do. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Were? Have Dank's concerns been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all have been fixed so far. · AndonicO Engage. 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, everything has been fixed down to Incense clocks, with nice edits by Tony, Malleus and Andonic. I changed a couple of words in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Little confusing here: there are nine nominators listed, but no indication about who is going to finish up copyediting the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies for the confusion. I can do some of the copyediting, but I'm not the best copyeditor around, so it won't be anywhere near perfect. I'll do what I can. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you deal with this then? "In the United States, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites ...". What does "regulated" mean in this context? How is it "regulated" elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the source, the United States maintains 24 satellites (the Navstar system) that circle the Earth every 12 hours. I'm not sure where this came from. Also from the source, the E.U. is working on its own GPS system, as is China. I'll fix the article. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added more from the source about GLONASS, the EU, and the Beidou navigation system. That should do it for international GPS systems. bibliomaniac15 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's one awkward turn of phrase here: "Sundials came into their present form during the Renaissance, with the acceptance of heliocentrism and equal hours, as well as applications of trigonometry; they were built in large numbers in many locations." I can't get it to make more sense/be more fluid; would anyone else like to have a go? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Aveni, Anthony F" reference refers to page 92, but the accessible pages at that link stopped just before that. I wanted to look at it to figure out what to do with this: "It is possible, however, that [the Greeks'] search for increased precision was not due to their interest in science, but rather their desire to imitate nature and the heavens, which formed the basis of their religion." I'm not a classicist, but my sense was that saying that it might be one but not the other doesn't paint the right picture; these two motivations were entertwined for the Greeks of that time. That is, science was to a large degree the pursuit of a way to understand nature and bring man in line with nature, especially for the Stoics. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd, it was on googlebooks before; anyway, that's exactly what he suggested, with different wording of course (the author was proposing this view, not saying it was a fact). If you think it's out of place or doesn't make sense, then feel free to remove it, since it'll never be known for certain what their motivations were. · AndonicO Engage. 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can see page 92 here. Imitating nature seems to be a reasonable inerpretation, but I'm less convinced about it being the basis of their religion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's an interesting point. He cites "science historian Derek Price", but again, I can't pull up the page that the reference is on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way I found it was to follow the link from the article, and then do a search on "Greek". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doing a search for "Price", I found this:page 346. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Malleus. Okay, it's Derek deSolla Price, Science Since Babylon, 1975, p. 53. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Aveni seems to be talking about precision, not accuracy - i.e. sundials need not have hour marks to be intellectually satisfying. This makes a lot more sense than what the article says: accuracy would be part of ritual correctness. (And the argument is weak anyway; these are Hellenistic constructions, when the Greek religion was beginning to fade.) The sentence as phrased begs several questions, chiefly whether the Greeks would have had any problem pursuing religion and science simultaneously; I think we can do without it. Possibly a footnote, indicating a source readers may wish to follow? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm also a fan of footnotes for that kind of comment, and that sounds like a good solution to me, unless one of the editors has some direction they want to go with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I left the reference (it cited the other sentence, as well), but removed the questionable precision/religion sentence. · AndonicO Engage. 11:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In History_of_timekeeping_devices#Modern_sundials, the paragraph starting "Water clocks were used..." is out of place, and repeats information from the section above, but I didn't want to just yank it because it's got 2 references; perhaps the information and references should be merged into the proper sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the wording and moved the paragraph to Early Western mechanical clocks. · AndonicO Engage. 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a paragraph in the Modern sundials section on hourglasses that included information from the 1500's, so I changed the 3-heading to 1 AD – 1600 AD, and gave the hourglass information its own 4-heading. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wanted to move "The hourglass was also used in China, but its history there is unknown" out of the Incense clocks section, but when I searched for "hourglass" in the reference, I get no hits. Can anyone find "hourglass" in that reference? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several things in the second paragraph of Clocks are contradicted earlier on the page. For instance, mechanical clocks didn't "spread quickly" to the West, or at least, not quickly after they were first built in China. The fourth paragraph seems misplaced. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the fourth paragraph (everything seems to already have been in the article, and it was unsourced), going to work on the rest now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed sentence to: "However, mechanical clocks were not widely used in the West until the 14th century." · AndonicO Engage. 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information from the two different sections on Wallingford's clock should be combined (3 different sections if you include the sentence from Modern sundials). I'd be fine with a short mention in one section (either one) and the bulk of the material in the other section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph in Early Western mechanical clocks needs a rewrite. (It's too much for me to figure out, and I have to move on.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed it slightly and reordered the sentences to give what seems to me to be a better descriptive sequence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, that's much better, but I still don't know what a "secular clock" is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's one for the nominators to address I think. My work is about done here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed to: "During the Middle Ages, clocks were primarily used for religious purposes; the first employed for secular timekeeping emerged around the 15th century." · AndonicO Engage. 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, Malleus was working backwards from the end and it looks like he made it to Pendulum clocks, so I'll stop at the end of Early Western mechanical clocks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm about done now I think. Nice work btw, you've improved the prose very significantly I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fantastic. I really like feedback, especially that feedback :) I checked your diffs too and I was happy with everything. I left a question on your userpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, I'm done with the copyediting now. So far as I can see there are just a few content-related issues left for the nominators to sort out from Dank55's comments above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to both of you. :) · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only remaining issue from Dan is the two paragraphs on Richard of Wallingford; I'm trying to address that now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merged them, and also moved down a few sections from #Early devices to #Modern devices. · AndonicO Engage. 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose now looks good; reading your changes quickly, everything looked good except for one sentence, which I fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking for opinions. It would be nice to find ways to encourage more and better copyediting at FAC and GAN. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has written or significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link to diffs and comments that indicated that their copyedit contributed largely to the article passing? This might make copyediting "sexier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider you and Malleus to have "significantly contributed"; why not use the already-existing one? · AndonicO Engage. 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is getting interesting. I'll move my discussion to the talk page; please join me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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"