Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of timekeeping devices/archive1

History of timekeeping devices

History of timekeeping devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices

• Featured article review/History of timekeeping devices/archive1

Notified: Keilana, Bibliomaniac15, Anonymous Dissident, Grimhelm, AndonicO, Zginder, Phoenix-wiki, WikiProject Time, WikiProject History of Science, talk page diff March 27

I am nominating this 2008 featured article for review because of the unaddressed concerns from RetiredDuke last month: lede that is too long, multiple talk page messages that are unanswered about inaccuracies, unsourced text and failed verification. While impressive, this will need a lot of careful work to bring back up to FA level. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi there! Thanks for the notification but I am no longer active on Wikipedia and unfortunately I won't have time to bring the article back up to FA standards. My apologies! · Andonic ^contact 04:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just wanted to leave a message here. I can take a look next week and see what I can do. Unfortunately, it's been 13 years since we collaborated on this project, and we split up our work on the different sections (I worked on the ancient civilization section), so I am honestly not very familiar with much of the content anymore. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  All improvements are welcome, even if the star cannot be saved! FemkeMilene (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Femkemilene, I'll put some work into fixing the issues already mentioned, as well as the MOS issues that need to be addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Femkemilene: Hi! I'll try to take a look at it but my time is quite limited these days. I'll do my best. Keilana (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• Update: loads of editing going on. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Hold lots of progress in this article, already looks much better. Amitchell125 is a FA regular and editing looks steady and promising. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• Update: progress still ongoing. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Paused here to help out on the GAN backlog drive, will return soon to tackle the 18th century some more. Amitchell125 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Back on to it. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk page page comments now addressed. Now on the development of the watch in 20th century. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Femkemilene and Nikkimaria, I've completed addressing the issues raised—the article now requires another pair of eyes to check it through. I can respond to comments. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  Brilliant. Thank you very much for your work. Only some quick nitpicking:

  • I think the lede should be slightly expanded again; the first two paragraphs are a bit short (maybe overcompensated?). If more logical, three fuller paragraphs would also work for me..

Lead section rewritten. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• • FN121 misses pp

Ref amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• FN195 has all caps and I htink should be in the references section?

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• The healing of Hezekiah is put as fact rather than Bible story

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:METRIC, international units go first, feet later in 20 feet (6.1 m)

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Noticing a when tag

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the alts are not that informative and somewhat repetitive of the caption. The Egyptian sundial could for instance be described as a semicircle-shaped rock with radial ingravings (or something in better prose). FemkeMilene (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I'll be happy for this to be closed without FARC when the above is addressed, but brain is bit muddled at the moment, so more pairs of eyes would be good. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Femkemilene and Amitchell125: - I ought to be able to take a look at this in chunks over the next week, if y'all would like me to take a look at this. As a quick note, I'd recommend replacing the History Channel ref with something better - history channel has a history of producing fringe crap, and I'd be particularly hesistant to cite them for anything related to ancient technology given that they're the people responsible for Ancient Aliens. Hog Farm _Talk 05:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that ref, now removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep without FARC - I gave this a read-through, and I only see very minor things to point out that are mainly stylistic phrasing. Good save here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep without FARC - My concerns at the Talk Page have been answered, and I think the article meets the criteria now, especially in terms of referencing and use of reliable sources. Just a minor point of confusion that I could not fix myself and that does not come in the way of my keep declaration... Is that first Dondi individual mentioned the father or the son? Maybe clarify. Very good work here. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)