Talk:History of timekeeping devices/Archive 1

Impression
I think the first half of the article excluding the intro. is good. The modern devices section needs a lot of work though. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. What exactly do you think it needs? Also, what do you think about a calendar section? J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is now much better.Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. J- ſtan TalkContribs 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is needed is a discussion of pendulum clocks, which were the standard on dry ground of many years. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 22:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get on that. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to use this as a reference to expand and for photos. Also there are a lot of photos on Commons here. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 01:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to add Candle clocks. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that calenders are really part of time keeping, but if you want to keep the section on calenders, it needs to be expanded or moved to the top and discuss only how man trying to figure out the seasons led to clocks. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 01:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just made that section to show the history of not only the calendar, but also a widely used calendar. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I am torn between calling this article Start of B class. The criteria for B class says has, "several of the elements described in 'start'". These elements are: a particularly useful picture or graphic, multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic, a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic, multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article.

I think the article has a useful picture and has multiple links, but I do not know if any topic is fully treated or any subheadings indicating where more can be added. I also think this article, "[h]as ... a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article." Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 01:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I copy-and-pasted and then revised some historical info from the Sundial article into the sundial section, if that's what you mean by "fully treated". J- ſtan ContribsUser page 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
The first sentence is a bit confusing "The history of timekeeping, the origins of our current time measurement system, dates back to the SUmerian civilization..." this seems to imply that both the history of time keeping and our current system has Sumerian roots. While the current system may have Sumerian roots I suspect the history of timekeeping probably preceded the Sumerians. The first sentence of the Sundial section has a tense issue - "uses" ... "which were". The parenthetical notation of (Islamic (modern) sundial) in the sundials section seems clunky and might be improved. And in the GPS section, it might be worth including that Einstein's relativity is (correctly) taken into account to produce accurate results in time and space.70.127.189.211 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did what I could, but if you wouldn't mind explaining the Einstein relativity point (or even adding it yourself), it would be appreciated. J- ſtan ContribsUser page 22:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The rate of time flow differs for objects moving with respect to each other at various speeds and also depending on the strength of gravity. Clocks therefore go at different rates compared to each other depending on their motion (e.g., atomic clocks have to be "corrected" if they are flown from one city to another) and distance from the center of the earth (a clock at a high altitude would be "clicking" too fast compared to its low attitude copies). Jason Quinn (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Of more importance, GPS is not really a timekeeping device, it is a distribution mechanism for the time maintained by the ensemble of atomic clocks that are orbiting in the GPS satellites. As new GPS satellites are orbited, new clocks are added to this ensemble. I wonder if a subsection should be written on ensembles of clocks, such ensembles play a role in many time systems these days. 128.255.45.57 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The result of the discussion was to merge. Thanks for the input!  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I was reading through the orphaned article History of watches, and thought that it might be best to merge that page with this one. Any thoughts?  Jus tin  (c)(u) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. · AndonicO  Hail!  01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Any objections?  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 04:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Paul Koning (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- The  Helpful   One  (Review) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Notes
I cannot say for sure that I can review this article at the moment but until I can say either way a couple of things: Dating ranges from BC BCE AD CE e.g. it starts off as BCE but in the Timekeeping history it becomes BC and AD. I would recommend when first used BCE is linked to BC and then just one is used. The same applies for AD and CE. Some references are inside (brackets) and some outside, once again have all the same. outside the brackets. I will let you know if I can commit the time to this (I would love to but...) and so until then I have not stated that I am reviewing the article. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Apologies mentioned references then did not say where I found them... I one I have found is ref: 23 and 24. Wotrth a quick check on the others. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I made all the dates into BC and AD, but I'm not sure I understand beyond that what you're talking about. If you mean some use Citeweb and some don't, I'm pretty sure all use citeweb.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry one of the reference points is inside the brackets and one outside, very small point but uniformaty again. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just can't find it. Could you give a number? This is something that should definitely be fixed.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, nevermind. I think I got them.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA 1st review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

discussion with User talk:J-stan on that editors talk page - copied here for others to follow the development of GA status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * please take a look at, not the best of sites but does go into the historical A11 quite a bit. You are more knowledgeable about this subject, up to you whether to add as a ref; I will say statements nearly always need to be proved by an external source, e.g. referenced. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the site may offer a different interpretation of this particular history, from reading the website and the article. It is a bit vague I agree only really useful if (when)! you get another reference, then if valid the two could show the reader that there are different opinions / history, for them to surmise. I will say that when I do the next review I will ask that on the first instance of AD a note is made to say that CE is the same thing and on the first instance of BC a link to BCE is made. This is an enclyclopedia and IMHO links like this should be made at least once. They could be in the form of a note (bracketted note) or something (maybe in reference form)? Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What might be an interesting note is adding the background on the different dating systems (BC, CE, AD, BCE).  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 22:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(no indent) editors please look at the references following ...the Sumerian civilization, in approximately 2000 B.C. or B.C.E. and following ...and Ptolemy (c. AD 150 CE). opinions and - or improvements appriciated. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GA next review.
I have one major concern with the article and GA. That is the title itself. History of timekeeping devices. I am concerned that a  (see Talk:Sundial) box or something like it maybe justifiably slapped onto it. The scope of the article is huge, for example the Maya (deep time) Aztecs and Inca time keeping systems are not mentioned, and with this title they should be IMHO. Am I right in saying this article is about how we arrived at the timekeeping devices (watches - clocks etc) societies throughout the world now use. If so this is an excellent article but the title is misleading.
 * The problem I have is that I cannot think of one that would clarify in the reader's mind what they would be expecting to find out. At the moment I would be expecting to read about devises that recorded other time scales that humanity may no longer use (Maya etc) but were time keeping devises,(if they recorded time to that extent). or mention be made that they did not see the need to record time to that level therefor no devises; and possibly western and to some extent Christian society was one that felt the need to measure time down to the last.....
 * Another option is to explain what the article is about in the first section. For example (to paraphrase from The Story of Time ...Civilisation from the Old world were devoid of mechanical clocks and exhibited not a hint of a mechanical revolution, each with minimal technology in this field. They possessed no sundials, though the now modern day Mexicans did have 'solar observatories'. None of these high cultures developed either an interest in or a method for measuring the divisions of the day into hours minutes etc...... rare Maya codices are know to exist that measure down to the nearest day only...
 * is there a wiki article to forward the reader onto that explains the social drive and impact that precise timekeeping can create, the fact that it is now to all intent and purpose global.
 * Now we begin to explain and limit what the article History of timekeeping devices is about. Maybe a question to the time portal members? I hope I have explained my concern clearly enough, if not please get back to me and I will try to clarify any points that people have. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's interesting you bring this up, as the article was originally titled "History of timekeeping". Editors on the peer review suggested it be moved. As for ancient timekeeping, the best I could do was write up a section on timekeeping history. All I could find on Native american timekeeping was the methods the Mayans used. I'll certainly look, but I can't really guarantee spectacular results.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * now this I like, well done. I see that you are going for FA status as well. Expand a bit on the sections you have added and you will have GA status. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're trying to go for FA. I have a few leads to expand on the sections, There was a whole article I didn't know about, Mayan Calendar. That'll definitely help.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well this development puts me in a tricky position. The book The Story of Time by Kristen Lippincott with Umberto Eco, E.H. (national maritime museum (UK))would provide ample references and examples of the time keeping you are looking for. But if I input too much am I then an editor and not a reviewer. Re The Mayans interesting people 260 days in a year in 13 units of 20s. 260 an interesting number near average duration between conception and birth for humans, approx. length of a basic agricultural season in areas of Southern Mexico. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps once you're finishing reviewing, you could help out by editing.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 20:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation. Although some of the timescales you are now adding are in our understanding calenders not timekeepers, I do believe it is a right addition. Some of the time scales you are adding could in essence be summerised by one or two salient points and a wikilink. That way also goes some way to answering my concerns about the title. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

no indent. The article is growing very well and in the right directions. Well done to all. One thing for GA and that is an explanation of BC AD and BCE and CE is important. I am glad to see that the whole article will have one consistant measurement but a link to what the general reader would see and understand IMO is necessary. Irrelevant that I created them I placed the references at the first occasion available, once only link to a clarification ref. I know wikilinks are available but the opportunity to say simply BC is now BCE etc is worthy of the article. Thoughts? Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you say that this is true of all articles, that they should explain the difference? In this case, I would respectfully disagree, unless you are saying that it would be relevant information for this article. I do not see how that would fit in with timekeeping devices, so I'm not entirely sure it's appropriate, unless I'm misunderstanding.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval cathedral clocks
Would it be appropriate to add something about the cathedral clocks of the 12th-14th century. I don't want to start mucking about with this during a GA nomination, but thought they might be relevant? eg Wells Cathedral clock dated to between 1386 and 1392, was replaced in the 19th century, and was eventually moved to the Science Museum in London, where it continues to operate. The dial represents the geocentric view of the universe, with sun and moon revolving round a central fixed earth. It may be unique in showing a philosophical model of the pre-Copernican universe. Also Salisbury cathedral clock & others at Exeter, Ottery St Mary, and Wimborne Minster.&mdash; Rod talk 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly would be. There is a lot of information we can use from Clocks. I also have a source which should be of use on the topic. --Grimhelm (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I've added a couple of paragraphs but additional sources are always useful.&mdash; Rod talk 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Common Era/Anno Domini.
Any reason why the standard BC/AD system isn't used? · AndonicO  Hail!  19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the system I favour, personally. --Grimhelm (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to BC/AD, but Keilana changed it back. I've reverted that, per this discussion, and that I've seen articles using the former system.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, something didn't go right. I'm on my way out, if someone wants to change it back.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 20:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is "more correct", but I believe BC/AD is more common; it's almost exclusively used by scholars (and not all of them), I believe, who probably aren't a large part of our readers. Maybe a bit more consensus toward one side before changing it, though. · AndonicO  Hail!  20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a professional level BC / AD and BCE / CE are mentioned linked together once, after that we aim to go for the BCE / CE, so people know. Many museum / heritage sites now go for the BCE / CE (see Common Era) In this article as part of GA I am interested in concistancy of dating type and the imparting of knowledge. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we have consistency, but I still don't understand what you think should be done. Should we just link BCE to BC, or explain the difference in the article? An explanation would seem inappropriate, because it doesn't have to do with timekeeping.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean that like the references once only a date is given as (e.g.) 2008 AD CE and BC 2008 BCE with a ref saying one is the same as the other, but if you go for Ad BC there would be no need in reality. People are coming across the new format or combinations of both all the time so then is the point of learning. I was concerned that a article with a complex subject and philosophies to get across (which it does both well) that suddenly people come across BCE with no understanding of what it is. Personally I prefer the CE BCE but as a reviewer if it fits the criteria it passes, if it does not it doesn't! Edmund Patrick ( confer  work) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Is this acceptable? Also, I think we should merge the short sections temporarily, just to avoid the tags, which the article could fail with.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * sorted, simple and to the point, wish I had thought of it. Glad to see that you editors are concerned as bizarrely the more you have done to FA status has opened gaps to GA status. I will extend the period of time no question and give you a brief report in the next day or two about what is needed for GA. Is everybody OK with this. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good with me.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)