Talk:Automaton clock

Why I am assessing it as a stub
Hi

These are taken from the WikiProject article quality grading scheme:

''Stub - The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.''

Start - An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.

Ref 1 = proves the pic is 19th century (FAIL) Ref 2 = A video, with nothing to say what it is, or where exactly the ref details are provided. In the end, the video is simply of a clock ticking and striking and provides no information about what it purports to reference. (FAIL) Ref 3 = An Elsevier locked link, no way to check the source. (POSS pass) Ref 4 = A BLOG (FAIL)

Most of those should be easy to replace though.

The other point is that this is such a wide topic, simply saying things such as "like a cuckoo clock" is more a stub than a start.

Then there are:
 * "Clocks like these were built from the first century BC through to Victorian times in Europe" - no, they were not "like" them, they were them - it should read "These types of clocks [...]"
 * "Later automatons usually perform on the hour, half-hour or quarter-hour, usually to strike bells" - Later than what? the one the article just said "working with gongs or trumpets", when did they sound? at random times? I bet it was on the hour, or half hour or something like that?
 * "More recently constructed automaton clocks are widespread in Japan" - what, only Japan has them widespread? How widespread? Why only Japan? Is that true?
 * "touted to be the largest" - what? you mean whoever wrote the article doesn't know if it is the biggest or not? But they give a ref, which is an unsigned anonymous blog. Interestingly, the editor simply had to click one of the links on that blog to go to an official page which they could have used for the ref instead of this rubbish one.

The article raises many more questions than it gives answers.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)