Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Time/archive1

Time
A wonderful article. It has clear, non-confusing info. Decent images, decent references, etc. FA quality for sure. 11kowrom 20:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC) %

Weak Support Great article, but weak on the references. Surely more than one was used! Lorty 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but object for the following reasons:


 * Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like and  may be useful here.


 * Quotes need footnotes also.


 * There are several paragraphs that are too short, which sometimes disrupts the flow of the article. These should either be expanded or merged.
 * About half of the article is simply the last 4 sections, see if the "see also" and "external links" sections can be shorterned a bit.
 * And more minor issues:


 * Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.


 * Per WP:MOS, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading  ==Magellan's journey== , use  ==Journey== .
 * Thanks, AndyZ t 21:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Some room for improvement:
 * the language is a little informal in places: "He said that time was basically what a clock read", "A famous analogy was one...".
 * The See Also list is far too long.
 * I think the opening sentence should endeavour to sxplain what time is, rather than open with how it has been studied.
 * The text and formatting need reviewing: "Hours are expressed using... but is commonly..."; 'main article' formatting at Philosophy of time has gone awry.
 * I think it's rather short, particularly if the 'See Also' section is reduced. The 'Chronology' section in particular could do with significant expansion. --BillC 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Object
 * Needs to cite sources with in-line citations
 * Lead needs to be rewritten -- too abstract, does not summarize the article, starting with the second paragraph would make a better opening.
 * I would prefer consistent section names: Physics of time, philosophy of time, units of time, etc.
 * The See Also section needs to be considerably compacted -- it spans half the length of the article.
 * The External Links section needs to be considerably trimmed -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. - Emt147 Burninate!  06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Per nom. Hezzy 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)