Wikipedia:Peer review/History of timekeeping devices/archive2

History of timekeeping devices

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello! This is another WP:TSQUAD collaboration. We've had some issues with the naming, and after some moving, have settled upon History of timekeeping devices. We are aiming for FA on this one, and just passed GA, but there's a lot of work to do, and any input would be helpful.

Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I may be able to look at this in a few days' time, but I am a little busy for the moment. At a first glance, my instinct is that the notes are too dense to read easily. Have you considered using shortened refs, leaving all the publication details to a bibliography (which would be more useful than a "further reading", in my opinion)? There's no obligation to do this, but it's an elegant system, and it not only makes the sources easier to take in but unclogs the edit page and makes editing quicker and less finicky. For web pages, you need to be sure that they are scholarly sources, and add more details about who publishes them, publishing dates, etc (where this is not available, I would suggest not using a site as a source). qp10qp (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. I'm guessing you mean references shortened to the title, author, and year, or something like that, then having a longer bibliography? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps just author name (as long as there is only one book per author in your bibliography) like I have done with Operation Camargue or Geoffrey Boycott? --SGGH ^speak! 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the system I was going by for this article (it is the one I normally use, and we went with it for Cannon); but it seems that it was changed to the References/Further-Reading style. For consistency, I recommend the Tzatziki Squad use the Notes/References style, at least for future articles. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jayron32[edit]

Just gonna make random notes as I come across stuff.

Article needs some focus. It is titled the history of timekeeping devices, but it reads like a wider article on the history of timekeeping in general. For example, the entire section on Sumer doesn't mention a single clock or device, but instead focuses on Sumer's calender. I understand the importance of Sumer (having invented the sexagecimal clock divisions) to timekeeping, but we need more here on the actual artifacts and devices, as opposed to timekeeping conventions which is all that is covered in this section.
- I do think it should be on timekeeping in general, and I will pare the Sumerian stuff. There's one problem - the Sumerian systems are very significant, and it would be prudent to mention why we measure time in 24 hours etc., but it doesn't fit here. Perhaps we could have History of timekeeping and History of timekeeping devices? What would you/any one else think? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done some bold shuffling, and we now have the article History of calendars. It was a redirect to Calendar, but there was little history stuff in there (should be, though...hm...new project?) so I just de-redirected it. Is that part better now? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the same theme, the entire clock section could use some focus and reorganization. It kinda rambles from clock to clock without any direction or focus. The first parts are good, focusing on specific kinds of clocks, and then it goes off randomly, jumping from clockmakers to wristwatches, to a specific brand of wristwatch (relevence?!?), and then jumps back to chronometers. The information seems all good, but its organization makes it hard to follow the article.

There's some stuff to start on. Let me know if you need any further help with this! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

I suggest, and many of these may be repeats of what is suggested above, my suggestions refer to this version:

"horologes," the comma should be outside of the "" I believe as otherwise the comma is part of the quote rather than the sentence.
last paragraph of the lead needs citations
more cites in the first paragraph of early timekeeping devices
you could perhaps expand the caption of the stonehenge image to say more about it
likewise the luxor obelisk
last paragraph of egypt needs citing
you could merge together the small paragraphs of this section
if it is not already linked, wikilink "athens" in the appropriate context somewhere in the greece section
excellent citation coverage in the early measurement devices, but the image captions could again be slightly more descriptive.
"The invention of mechanical clockwork itself is usually credited to Liang Lin-son, an 8th century Chinese"...what? A Chinese man? Chinese inventor? Businessman, court jester? I'm not sure if the term chinese on its own equates to Englishman or American. It may do, you may be right, but I thought I would flag it up anyway.
again, image captions ought to be expanded slightly
pilot watches section has no cites.
chronometers section needs more citations too
GPS section has no cites either.
if you follow the ref suggestion above, "references" needs to be "notes" and further reading "references" as per the articles I linked you to, again only a friendly suggestion :)

Hope my comments help. --SGGH ^speak! 17:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: these are great and detailed observations. Just want to defend use of Chinese. Naturally, Chinese inventor would work to suit most readers, but it might not be a fair characterisation of Liang Lin Son and is technically redundant. The traditional English word would be Chinaman, but that is long obsolete.

Using Chinese as stands in the text seems best style to me. Technically it is substantive use of an adjective, very common in references to people by nationality.

Athenians and Spartans fought a war. -- substantive adjectives in plural
So claimed Moshe Dayan, an Israli. -- ditto in singular

However

... as per the Coptic calendar. -- adjective
So said the Patriarch, naturally a traditional Copt. -- generic substantive

Generic antecedents cause all sorts of interesting dilemmas in English! ;)

Chinese is a difficult word in English, because it can be used as singular or plural, as adjective or substantive. Yes, Chinese people, Chinese language, Chinese woman, etc. will clarify this if needed. I understand SGGH's discomfort with the abrupt sounding phrase, however, I think this is a subtle difference in varieties of English. I believe American English not only permits, but finds this kind of usage natural and unnecessary qualifiers long-winded. I am guessing from what I read by American writers. As an Australian, I think our variety is frequently more UK-like and embraces longer forms and redundancy to convey a hint of respect, even when clarity is not at issue.

In the interests of allowing consistancy of English variety within articles, as per Wiki guidelines, I'd recommend letting the current text stand in this case. However, I'd be personally happy either way, since my tastes work like SGGH's (who I will now learn is a dissenting American). Alastair Haines (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the exact problem with "Chinese" as a noun as did SGGH, but the source for it used that term and left it at that. "Chinese inventor" was the other possible term I considered, but that would have been somewhat redundant, and most Chinese inventors were polymaths, so his main work could have been as a mathematician, philosopher, etc. Alastair Haines' rationale does get us out of the hole, though. ;-) --Grimhelm (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Thanks for inviting comment Keilana. There's a lot of good sourced material, well illustrated to work with here. I've not got time to comment in detail atm, but the title and redirects demand attention. Time and clock would seem to be the parent articles, calendar is an important spin-off. Wiktionary:chronometer should also get a link. The extent of shared content across all these entries should certainly be thought through to consensus.

Despite my personal interest in all things Sumerian, I must admit it is only their calendrical and numerical system, not their physical methods for "keeping track of" time, that we have documented. As such they are really only tangential to this entry under its current title devices. So I second the bold change above, though I note calendar is screaming for attention (not an FA issue for the current article, though).

Sorry I can't be more help Keilana, bonne chance! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken and reviewed, most excellent suggestions. The only thing I can add to that is a suggestion on the section on Greece. As it stands now the four words in that section look horrible. Try to merge the information into the intro, and just remove the section entirely. (Unless you plan on expanding it) I'd try something like

Ancient civilizations developed early systems of time measurement. The Ancient Egyptians classified day and night as each being twelve equal hours long, developing large obelisks to measure the movement of the sun. These obelisks are considered to be the earliest sundials. Later civilizations, such as the Roman Empire, improved on these early designs. Water clocks, or clepsydras, were also of early Egyptian design, probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re. The Shang Dynasty of China is thought to have used the outflow water clock, introduced from Mesopotamia, as early as 2000 BCE. While Clepsydra were first used in Greece.

Finding a reliable source for the statement about "Clepsydra" first being used in Greece would be best. With regards. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had just stubbified the section after moving all the calendrical stuff. I plan on expanding it soon (when I have the time), but will also integrate it into the intro. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit[edit]

Keilana asked me to review this article and I have finally found some free time! This is a huge topic. I am worried first and foremost that the research is a bit slapdash. Second, large sections of the article need to be explained in more detail, some areas of the world are missing, and some reorganization might be in order. Here are my suggestions for improvement.

Sources

This book is not written by experts. These authors are probably conspiracy theorists of the worst sort.

This source has no information about its authors and it is a .com.

This site, while a .gov, has no author either. Why not rely on its bibliography and use the most reliable information?

This is from an 1853 translation of an ancient source. How reliable is this?

This is a newspaper article or something on the history of clocks in China. I think we can find something more reliable!

I have not gone through all of the sources used in this article, but this early sampling makes me worried. If this is the sort of research that the article is based on, then I am not convinced that it is going to be accurate or comprehensive. Solid research is the foundation of any good article. Without it, the article will crumble.

Indeed, it may be best to do some radical reworking. I've got some reliable print sources, but I'm woefully busy at the moment and may not get to the article for another week or so. :/ Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

The lead does not yet summarize the article per WP:LEAD. See WP:BETTER#Lead section for hints on how to write a lead.

I am not sure that long block quote describing the first mechanical clock in the "China" section works well. Can you find a better description? The ancient description is poetic, but lacking in the sort of details that would explain the device to a modern reader.

Organizationally speaking, the "Early timekeeping devices" section is a little awkward. The "Egypt" and "China" sections mention sundials, candle clocks, and water clocks, but the reader doesn't get a full description of those until later in the section. I suggest integrating the history into the descriptions of the ancient devices. Such integration has already started to take place:

Sundials in the form of obelisks (3500 BCE) and shadow clocks (1500 BCE) were used in ancient Egypt
The earliest uses of water clocks were in Egypt and China.
There is even repetition in the "Water clock" section regarding the tomb bit.

The Egyptian T-square sundial material: it seems out of place right now. It should either go in an Egypt section or in a clearly delineated "History of the sundial" paragraph in the "Sundial" section.

The last paragraph of the "Sundial" section could easily be viewed as random examples of sundial literature - how does the reader know it isn't? There is a lot of this kind of material in the article - I was unconvinced that the examples provided were representative or truly important in most cases.

The article does not explain how modern clock mechanisms work - this needs to be added.

What happened to clocks in China and Japan during the modern era?

What about India? South America?

There are sections of the article that need sourcing, such as the "Wristwatches" and "Chronometers" sections.

I'm not convinced that the "Pilot's watch" deserves its own section.

The article needs copy editing, but I would wait on that until it has been reorganized and more explanation has been added.

Smaller comments

Caption: The sun rising over Stonehenge on the June solstice - It would probably be a good idea to explain what Stonehenge is - not all readers will know.

It is thought that obelisks were built to serve as sundials; the first of these were constructed and used around 3500 BCE - Do we know where?

Obelisks functioned in much the same manner: markers around it would mark units of time, and indicated morning and afternoon, as well as the summer and winter solstices. - "mark" is repeated; Could you explain how the solstice was marked?

Using plumb-lines called "merkhets", the Egyptians could determine the time at night, provided the stars were visible - It is not clear how exactly this worked.

By at least the Shang Dynasty or before, China had found the clepsydra, brought from Mesopotamia. - Needs a date.

Several innovations were added since then, and several additions had been added to it that made it more accurate. - Vague - we need details here.

Su Song's tower eventually led to the development of mechanical clocks in Europe - How? Some explanation is missing here.

Special incense sticks were slowly burnt, and the time could be told by the smell of the incense - You need to explain this to the reader. Lay out the explanation piece by piece.

However, sundials were often not designed to be round and were not to be found in open settings - I don't really understand what is being said here.

The sundial was further developed by other cultures, including the Greek, Chinese, Roman and Islamic cultures - How developed? This is a lot of cultures and spans a lot of time! Are there no important developments to mention?

Sundials first appeared in their present form during the Renaissance with the acceptance of heliocentrism and equal hours, as well as applications of trigonometry. - Explain why heliocentrism and trig were essential to the proliferation of sundials.

The mathematician and astronomer Theodosius of Bithynia is said to have invented a universal sundial that could be used anywhere on Earth, but nothing is known about it. - Then why are we talking about it?

The paragraph beginning "Water clocks were used to great extent in Greece, introduced by Plato" is a bit unorganized - it needs to move from the general to the specific. It should begin with Greek water clocks and end with Plato's alarm clocks.

In particular, Arab engineers improved on the use of waterclocks up to the Middle Ages. - Not much here on Arab improvements.

The invention of mechanical clockwork itself is usually credited to Liang Lingzan, an Chinese government official, and Yi Xing, a Chinese monk - Include date!

Innovations continued, with miniaturization leading to domestic clocks in the 15th century, and personal watches in the 16th. - Shouldn't this say "in Europe"?

The Jesuits were also a major contributor to pendulum clocks in the 17th and 18th centuries,[53] having had an "unusually keen appreciation of the importance of precision".[54] In measuring an accurate one-second pendulum, for example, the Italian astronomer Father Giovanni Battista Riccioli persuaded nine fellow Jesuits "to count nearly 87,000 oscillations in a single day." - What does "major contributor" mean? The counting of oscillations seems like trivia. If it isn't, it needs to be explained why not.

In 1675, 18 years after inventing the pendulum clock, Huygens devised the spiral balance, which would eventually allow for greater accuracy and miniaturization of pocket watches - because...?

I hope these suggestions are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]