Wikipedia:Peer review/History of timekeeping devices/archive1

History of timekeeping

I've listed History of timekeeping for peer review because I've been working on it for a while now, and I wanted some input as to how it could be improved. I'm trying to get it up to GA, so checking it against that criteria would help. Thanks, J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest things to improve would be citation style and capitalisation (e.g. Modern Devices) - use {{citeweb}} tags in order to cite information from the internet, for example. Little things make all the difference to GA reviewers, and they'll not give your article the time of day unless there's nothing that could niggle at them. Ensure all citations go after punctuation, and make sure there's no doubly-punctuated citations (cough note 20 cough). Similarly, why is "candle clock" bolded, yet nothing else is? I'd just give it a once-over with a fine-toothed comb before worrying about content. Seegoon (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look better now? GAN worthy? J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 00:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call this article History of timekeeping devices, not just of timekeeping. I remember in history we talked about the effects of being able to keep time in minutes in the 1800s changed society and how they perceived time. This article should include all of those aspects unless you want to make it solely about the devices. That's a scope issue. For what you have you need to reference the chronometer section and give everything more context. It's just descriptions of the devices and no real flow through the whole work or what led to research in new types of timekeeping devices, etc. gren グレン 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like it to be about timkeeping as a whole, including devices. Would you mind finding a source for those effects of keeping time in minutes? I would, but it's kind of a vague statement, and you know what you're talking about. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 16:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly agree with Grenavitar. The article is fine overview of the history of individual clocks, but despite an initial mention of calendars, entirely overlooks much of the history of human timekeeping. The struggle over how to keep time should certainly at least mention Julius Caesar, for starters. -- Yamara 22:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]