Talk:History of timekeeping devices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article History of timekeeping devices has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
WikiProject Time
Time Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is currently being improved by the Tzatziki Squad, hopefully to become a featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the featured article criteria. Please feel free to make your own improvements, and if you would like the Tzatziki Squad to make any improvements, leave a message on its talk page.

Contents

[edit] 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-ſtanTalkContribs 16:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is now much better.Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. J-ſtanTalkContribs 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-ſtanContribsUser 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-ſtanContribsUser page 01:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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-ſtanContribsUser page 02:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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-ſtanContribsUser page 22:11, 5 January 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)

[edit] Merger proposal

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was to merge. Thanks for the input! Justin(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? Justin(c)(u) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. · AndonicO Hail! 01:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Awesome. Any objections? Justin(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] 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. Justin(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. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, nevermind. I think I got them. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA 1st review

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a nice start to an interesting subject, and at the same time informative.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    wristwatch statement does need at least one reference in the section, so does Chronometers
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    see 9 10 and 11 below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    As I mention below although I know it is about the existing timekeeping methods, a reference to other ways of measuring other time systems or wikilinks to those article puts this one into world history context?
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
    some of the internal workings of a clock would be an asset IMHO.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  8. These are just first development thoughts from a new pair of eyes to the article not the subject. They are here for you to just think about it. Being mentioned does not mean they need to be changed, just that they need to be thought about so if they remain they do so because the writers want them to be there. and they are in no particular order - sorry people. If I feel the article needs requirements I will cover that in my next review.
  9. Is it the place for and worth adding in the introduction that not all cultures defined or experienced time in the same way until...(I know it might end up touching on mythology (the first time keeping? but it would show the development))?
  10. Ancient civilizations developed early systems of time measurement. it would be early wouldn't it? or do you mean more by this?
    the term timekeeping devices need to be defined at the beginning, one could argue correctly that Stonehenge is a time keeping devise, but one not covered here.
  11. Research needed as to where the reader can see example of where one can see replicas, examples should be referenced. e.g.Whipple museum Cambridge Su-Sungs water clock water escapement.
  12. no rolling ball example of timekeeping, not necessarily accurate or is it because it is "just" another form of measuring time as we now measure it?
    is it worth for example to add at the top of the relevant section: sundials see main article: [[sundial]]
  13. It is a good informative non boring article that gets across some complex human developments. Well done, actually not that far of a FA status, but for that you will need another reviewer. Thanks. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 21:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

discussion with User talk:J-stan on that editors talk page - copied here for others to follow the development of GA status.

  • please take a look at [1], 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). Justin(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)

[edit] 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 {{globalize/Northern}} (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. Justin(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. Justin(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. Justin(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. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.— Rod talk 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly would be. There is a lot of information we can use from Clocks#History. 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.— Rod talk 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Will do. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Justin(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. Justin(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. Justin(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. Justin(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. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

The sheer number of images is cramping up the text. We need to make a decision on what images to add in and where to put them. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a few are unremarkable, unnecessary, or of bad quality: I suggest we remove those (note: this one is of bad quality, but should be kept for historical importance). · AndonicO Hail! 23:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the cathedral clock pictures since they weren't really needed and shifted the other pictures into a better format. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 23:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A bit better, now we just need more text. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 08:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title.

I think this should be renamed to "History of timekeeping," as not all methods are devices (i.e. calendars), and "devices" is a bit of an odd word for clocks. · AndonicO Hail! 13:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, but check the peer review for reasons why it was changed. I agree, especially with the expanded timekeeping section. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see their point: we need to cover all timekeeping history in order to drop "devices". So still plenty of work to do before we can re-name it to the original title. · AndonicO Hail! 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
IMO we should have both - the history of timekeeping (e.g. calendars, systems, etc.) and the devices. That means we get rid of all the abstract calendar stuff here, leaving the Aztec calendar stones and related stuff, and create something on the history of timekeeping. It wouldn't be in the collab, would it? If it were, what about history of timekeeping devices in Egypt? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea, making a fork. There is certainly enough to work with. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 21:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as well as forks for each individual country with significant devices - e.g. Egypt or Switzerland. They can be put on the waiting list for future collaborations, is that OK? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No IMHO doing something like this would make all the new articles very stubby. I think we should rename it to "History of timekeeping", as that's a more general term for both calendars and devices. Maybe in the future, if this article suddenly grows extremely long, we can seperate them.--Phoenix-wiki 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with History of Timekeeping. The Helpful One (Review) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
In that case, Ill move it right awaw. If anyone has any objections, just move it back and we'll discuss.--Phoenix-wiki 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That was a bit of gun jumping, Phoenix. I won't move it back, unless others have a problem with it. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I do a tiny bit. I was GAing the article on the title as history of timekeeping devises. Now I know I was there pointing out my concerns about the title (see GA next review above). The problem I have now is surely an article that pertains to the history of timekeeping is much much wider, and if so will all the additions "cut the mustard." I have in a sandbox my notes for what was going to be the penultimate review which I will cut and paste to here now. By changing the title I think you have opened up the subject and therefore my review. Now there are at least two things you could do:
  1. withdraw the GA request for a bit and reapply.
  2. ask me not to review it on the second occasion - I have no problem with that - fresh eyes etc.
  3. Put it up and if I am available I will start again.
  4. retitle it back to original.
  5. go for it! I will give you a time slot but will need an idea from you.

I have to say I was planning to put forward the penultimate review, see if the article matched it, and if so pass it WITH THE PROVISO that I returned in say 4 weeks to look again and see if anything detrimental to the original article has been done if so I would delist it. Crude I know but the only way I thought. I must say I have enjoyed the squad adopting an article and through obvious hard work and genuine interest in learning and getting knowledge out there improve this article well beyond its original limitations. Congrats to all involved. You lot are proving to be one of the hardest reviews but by far the most entertaining and learning one as well.

  • notes for penultimate review as follows unchecked against todays article. Written before the title change.
  • GA penultimate review
  • It is likely that the first calendars... likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions ... some research leads to the proposition...
  • What?

Many ancient civilizations used the motion of the sun, moon, planets and stars to determine time, date and seasons.[5][6] It is likely that the first calendars likely means a very high chance:- next thing is to prove it! would not ...in some opinions or some research leads to the proposition that... read better and still get the point across. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, I fixed it to reflect the reference more. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Egypt

daytime leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. Done.

  • Greece

barleycorn leads to a disambiguation page needs to have a direct link. No such link.

  • Mayan, I am not sure at all about the list of "months" or "days". What about Egyptian, Celtic, Norse, Greek etc. These are for the main article about that specific subject. I know calendars are timekeeping systems (and in some societies the only one they used) so the calender section does need to stay in a much reduced role as they were / are timekeeping devises

images:

  • Salisbury cathedral clock, restored for extra is it worth stating what type of clock - escapement, as the development of these meant that the timepieces became more accurate.
  • A longcase clock with a pine case:- why have that image, now one opened to show weights etc might be worthy, not sure of this one. And of course there is grandmother clocks as well.

Good Bits: the natural progression from calendars to time pieces very well done. the order of the sections reflects the development of the pieces. END Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it back, there was no consensus for the move, and it seemed to have created more problems. I've commented on a few quick changes above, and stricken some. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 15:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


With regard to the grandfather clock, it takes up a lot of space, and an image that shows the interior workings as well would be preferrable, but there are surprisingly few suitable grandfather clocks on WikiCommons. In the meantime, I have replaced it with a picture from the Przypkowscy Clock Museum - certainly notable, and it frees up some space for more pictures. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review - Final

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is an excellent piece of work Both you as editors and I as reviewer have run through the mill on this one.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Just watch the choice of words occasionally. Read it as a inquiring reader would.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    With this title it must stay broad and comprehensive.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Well done rest come back refreshed. Note to future reviewers. GA discussions spread throughout this page into other sections - something that may happen I think when you get a squad working on the article.

I will keep a watch on this article it is growing wonderfully. I may drop in bits that I find to the talk page so Tzatziki Squad can add or not. It is a big complex one to take to FA; I wish you well. Thank you. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, GA? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
as it says in the box, well done, but my you have work for FA. But you do seem to be enjoying yourself. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bits and pieces.

it is great to watch this article grow as it is. For images of clocks - escapements etc have a look at [2]. They might be useful or not. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The direction we are taking

I want to see this article through to FA, but I'm a bit unsure of the direction it's taking. I know I'm bringing up some old points again, but I just want them clarified.

  • Is this article going to be "History of timekeeping devices" or "History of timekeeping"? I know from the Peer Review that we seem to be looking at it as a history of the devices, but will we be starting a more general article on "History of timekeeping"? (I would have supported the move to History of timekeeping, but it seems we didn't have a consensus on this). The reason for my question is as to where we will talk about the French Revolution's reform to decimal clocks (a change of timekeeping system rather than device mechanics), or the how the people of the Middle Ages took their concept of time from monastic timekeeping and the canonical hours, for example. I'm not quite ready with the sources for this, but it should be borne in mind.
  • Why do we use American English instead of British English? I agree we should have consistency, though I wonder what consensus we draw on. I noticed that in Cannon, for example, we used American English, but went with the British spelling for "archaeological findings" in that same article.
  • Why do we use the CE/BCE system? It was brought up earlier by AndonicO earlier, but it has already begun to cause some confusion in the article (example here where BC was used alongside BCE: [3]). The footnote briefly explaining the two systems is good, but I think we should have a consensus here that we will follow through for the Squad's other articles. Having glanced over the sources for the clocks section, they all give preference to AD where a system is used at all. AD is again the traditional system (which we used for the Cannon article), and the one with which the reader will be most familiar.
  • Lastly, as has been mentioned in the ongoing Peer Review, it is probably better to have short author names for the footnotes ("Notes") and keep the full publisher to the bibliography ("References"), as we did for Cannon.

On the whole, these are just consistency issues, but we should clarify them to improve the article and avoid them recurring in future collaborations. --Grimhelm (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the American English versus British English, the rule is if the article is not about either country to write the same way the first editor wrote it and to make the rest of the article uniform with that. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I think AmE is the consensus here. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The article's first editor doesn't seem to have favoured either, so it must have been a case of "first-to-plant-the-flag-for-their-national-spelling". ;-) I don't really mind either way (I was just curious), but since we have an "implicit consensus", I suppose we best stick with it. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


  1. It would appear that the consensus is for the article to be "History of timekeeping devices," with a fork for History of calendars. I agree with you, though.
  2. Neither cannon nor this article are strictly American or British topics (more like Mediterranean/European early on, and then worldwide), so neither is "better." For cannon, we decided AmE because most of us editing were American (I think "archaeological" is both AmE and BrE, by the way).
  3. I don't think there was consensus on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD; might be worth a fresh discussion. I prefer BC/AD, because it's more common, and will likely be what the reader is more accustomed to using.
  4. I'll go through the article in a few hours and sort that out. · AndonicO Engage 21:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Ae" instead of "e" is typically British spelling (see here), though I see "archaeology" more than "archeology" anyway. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Here's my opinion on the whole thing.

  1. This article is about the history of timekeeping devices, anything about timekeeping that isn't about the devices likely belongs in history of calendars. I've been forking stuff over there as I find it, it may be a reasonable candidate for the Squad's help if someone chooses it.
  2. I think it's basically AmE now because it's what's been in use. It would be a pain to switch it back, why bother?
  3. I prefer BCE/CE because it's more neutral than BC/AD, simply because BC/AD has religious connotations (Anno Domini, Before Christ). Since this is both a worldwide topic and a non-religious one, I think the scientifically accepted BCE/CE would be better.
  4. Yes, concur, I haven't been able to get to that, sorry. I've just been copyediting, but AO says he'll do it and I don't want to butt in on whatever system he may have going for that. (BTW, AO, if you do want help just post and I'll help transfer.) Keilana|Parlez ici 22:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, two more things. I think we can fit some of that stuff you talked about here if it discusses a change in devices or new ones being invented, otherwise it belongs at history of calendars. Also, I really want to see this through FAC as well... :-) Keilana|Parlez ici 22:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting changes

Hi there, I took the liberty to make some formatting changes as I saw a lot of information overlap and unnecessary categorisation. Of course if you don't agree, the rv button is nearby :-) --   Avg    21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much! We appreciate the help. Have you considered joining the WP:TSQUAD? We'd love to have you along for the ride -- it'd make the group an even 20! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Now that sounds like a proper cabal. Finally my dreams come true :-)--   Avg    22:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a cabal, just part of the Epsilon. ;) · AndonicO Engage 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References.

Anyone know anything about refs 54 and 55? I can't find anything on that book. · AndonicO Engage 23:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The ref using cite book is: Houghton Mifflin Publishing; Eryl Davies (2005). Inventions (DK Pockets). Dorling Kindersley Publishing. ISBN 978-1564588890. . HTH— Rod talk 10:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Two publishers? · AndonicO Engage. 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


The publishing information has already been on ref 49:
Davies, Eryl (1995). Pockets: Inventions, p 42. Dorling Kindersley Publishers Ltd. ISBN 0751351849; ISBN 978-0751351842
I don't know where you are getting the second publisher from. Also remember that we cite two authors surnamed "Davies". --Grimhelm (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the 2005 edition on Amazon see [4] & your ref is to a 1995 edition.— Rod talk 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A sundial is a dial

I believe that a sundial is by definition a dial that is a shadow clock. Shadow clocks that are not round are not sundials. I if am right this article needs to be changed. Zginder 2008-04-19T12:48Z (UTC)

[edit] Could we be less Euro-centric?

A lot of the article is very focused on Western devices while ignoring the Eastern, oriental ones. I've started the China and Incense clock sections, but I'd like some help chasing down sources. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to find some; if I do I'll post them here. · AndonicO Engage. 09:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Push to FA by The Squad

OK, I think we need a more thorough and specific status report based on the current state of the article. How are we going? What more needs to be done? What aspects of the article should we now be focusing on improving? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through the article and copyediting, at the moment. I think the "Early history" sections (mainly China and Greece) need more information, they're a little sparse. · AndonicO Engage. 09:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll work on those over the next few days. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
GPS also needs to be cited. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 21:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

For the incense clock section, I found a great book on Google Books: The Trail of Time: Time Measurement with Incense in East Asia by Silvio A. Bedini. Unfortunately, the preview does not cover incense clocks, mostly consisting of the first chapter discussing Asian time measurement in general. Is it possible for one of us to procure the book and use it to cite? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 04:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate systems

This article should note that there have been many different systems of measurement of time; see the articles linked from systems of measurement, such as Chinese units of measurement. -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style of References?

It seems that the footnotes have been merged together, so that they give all the publisher information but don't give any of the page references. (See here). This will be a serious problem if this is to move toward FA status. Referring to page numbers quoted is key to Wikipedia articles' verifiability. We had agreed earlier on this talk page (and it was also brought up in the archived peer review) to use a Notes/References system, keeping the footnotes short and putting the full book information in the Bibliography. Today's Featured Article, for example, the Battle of Blenheim, shows exactly how this should be done.

The further reading section could still be useful if kept separate, so perhaps we could work it into a mixed system like this:

[edit] Footnotes

Author, page number. Eg.

  • Alder, p 21

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] References

The full title and publisher information for books cited in the footnotes. Eg.

  • Alder, Ken (2002). The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the World. London: Little, Brown. ISBN 0743216768. 

[edit] Further reading

Books that were not cited in the article, but which would be of direct relevance or of good use to any readers interested in doing further research after reading the article. Eg.

  • Landes, Davis S (2000). A Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 518. ISBN 978-0674768000.


The argument for keeping "References" and "Further reading" separate is that some books cited in the footnotes are not of direct relevance to the topic (such as Europe: A History and The Measure of All Things). Books under "Further reading" should ideally be about some aspect of the History of Timekeeping Devices.

I won't be able to do this restoration and reformatting myself, but I feel it should be done before it's too late (ie. before it requires hours of sifting through the History to restore the old notes). Obviously websites used as sources only need to be mentioned in the footnotes section. Aside from that, I think most of the page numbers for the books can be found in the History link I mentioned at the start. --Grimhelm (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to see if I can work on the references Friday or Saturday; quite short on time, but I think I can squeeze it in. (And yes, I'll be writing this down to defeat my despicably bad memory...). · AndonicO Engage. 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-class review for Time

The following is a check list for WikiProject Time members to fill out when conducting the A-class review. Zginder 2008-05-14T02:29Z (UTC)

  1. Well-written Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
  2. Reasonably clear
    Escarpment is undefined and used a lot. Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
    Er...Do you mean Escapement? Escarpment doesn't seem to do with timekeeping. bibliomaniac15 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, sorry for the mistake. Zginder 2008-05-15T13:16Z (UTC)
    Zginder 2008-05-17T23:46Z (UTC)
  3. Complete description of the topic
    Marine chronometers were a revolution in navigation, but are hardly mentioned. Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
    I added a section about them. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Zginder 2008-05-20T12:31Z (UTC)
  4. Meets How to write a great article. Zginder 2008-05-14T20:12Z (UTC)
  5. Length suitable for the subject. Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
  6. Well-written introduction
    I have worked on the intro and think that is is now good. Zginder 2008-05-17T21:12Z (UTC)
  7. Appropriate series of headings to break up the content. Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
  8. Sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
    The early Early timekeeping devices sections are very well sourced, but the modern is more haphazard. Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
    The reference format move will need to be completed. Zginder 2008-05-17T02:30Z (UTC)
    What reference format should be used? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think he refers to the one suggested by Grimhelm. I don't use it, so I don't know how it goes. bibliomaniac15 03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, that is what I meant, but that is more MOS than reference problem. Zginder 2008-05-20T12:31Z (UTC)
  1. Well illustrated
    Why do Candle clocks and Incense clock have no photo? Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
    Formatting issues. We have a lot of long images that make it hard for us to fit an image for all the clocks. However, they're still in the articles. bibliomaniac15 22:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think I can skirt around MOS for the candle clock image. The incense clock one, however, has unsightly flash in it that obscures part of it, so I haven't included it. I'd like to look for a replacement image out in the internet. bibliomaniac15 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    Although a appropriate picture of GPS (I can not find one that is relavent), a photo of non-sundial shadow clocks, and an animation would be nice. Zginder 2008-05-17T03:12Z (UTC)
  2. No copyright problems. Zginder 2008-05-14T20:12Z (UTC)
  3. Could at least be considered for featured article status Zginder 2008-05-14T16:54Z (UTC)
  4. Corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
    I looked at Encarta and this is better, it mentions the China also used burning knotted rope. I do not think this would be required to add, but something to think about. It does however not call shadow clocks sundials. As I stated early a sundial is a type of shadow clock not the other way around. Zginder 2008-05-16T13:00Z (UTC)
    Regarding the Chinese knotted rope, I'm not finding any good sources other than Encarta, has anyone else found anything? As for the sundial/shadow clock thing, I thought that's what the article said. If not, that's probably what it should say. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    None of my sources mentioned knotted rope either. Either way, the article does not lose very much without the mention of knotted rope. We don't need to list every single thing people used to tell the time with. bibliomaniac15 03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
    Zginder 2008-05-20T12:31Z (UTC)
  5. Very useful to readers. Zginder 2008-05-14T20:12Z (UTC)
  6. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Zginder 2008-05-15T18:23Z (UTC)

I approve the promotion to A-class in WikiProject Time. I will try to get a second opinion. If I can not I will promote in a few days. Zginder 2008-05-20T12:31Z (UTC)


[edit] marine chrometer

take a look at [5] came after Harrison's (which were very expensive). Parkinson and Frodsham made them cheaper so more ships bought them. Further info at [6]. Of course an explanation of why it was important to know the correct time at Greenwich and how this knowledge was used to place the vessel would make sense of the piece. I can assist if you wish,but it is not difficult and I am away walking the hills of this country for a week or so from tomorrow so will look upon my return. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 18:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Did European mechanical clocks come from asia?

I'd like to question the unequivocal statement in 'Timekeeping devices in China' that: "Su Song's tower eventually led to mechanical clocks in Europe." The citation given for this is a UNESCO publicity magazine, which might not be considered a reliable source. The only scholarly evidence I know of for this idea is Joseph Needham's books, where it is presented as a hypothesis. The escapement in the Su Song tower was not similar to escapements in mechanical clocks, it still relied on the flow of water for timekeeping. Europe had it's own long tradition of complicated mechanisms, which many sources regard as sufficient to account for the development of the mechanical clock. --ChetvornoTALK 21:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found it repeated in several other sources. I think what separates Su Song's clock from clepsydra was that the water itself did not provide the measurement, it merely powered the machine. I haven't heard of a European horologe built before the 11th century though, but if there are records of such, please provide them. bibliomaniac15 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
From this very article: "The first [European] clock of which we have any record was built by the future Pope Sylvester II for the German town of Magdeburg, around the year 996." That would certainly seem to contradict the article's earlier statement, that "Su Song's tower [1088] eventually led to the development of mechanical clocks in Europe." --Grimhelm (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I found this when looking up the Magdeburg clock, suggesting that it might not have been a clock after all. bibliomaniac15 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what that source shows (the Google books link only provides fragmentary details). My own quick check through Google books turned up this: "It was near the end of the tenth century, about the year 996, when he made at Magdeburg this clock so wonderful and surprising, as to go by means of weights," showing Sylvester's clock to have been mechanical.
The UNESCO source dates Su Song's clock ("greatest of all Chinese medieval clocks") to 1092, instead of 1088 as another online source quoted in this article. The exact wording of the UNESCO source also says: "Knowledge of the principles of Su Song's clock spreading to Europe led to the development of mechanical clocks in the West two centuries later."
This is contradicted by Thomas Reid's published source: "The writers of the 11th century speak in such a manner of clocks that it appears they must at that period have been well known." I think that published sources are to be preferred. --Grimhelm (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that the sources you've put up are better. I've removed the offending statement. Please, by all means, add your sources into the article. bibliomaniac15 23:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dating (again).

I notice someone has changed a lot of the BCEs and CEs to BC and AD; are we using the standard system now? · AndonicO Engage. 15:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I know, perhaps we should put in a couple of commented messages to the effect of "BCE and CE are used in this article, as it is about timekeeping in general, not one specific timekeeping system." I'll change them back, unless there's a general consensus to switch to Gregorian. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Straw poll? I vote BC/AD. · AndonicO Engage. 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I support BC/AD, but I used BCE/CE because I was under the impression that we had decided to use that. bibliomaniac15 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
They are both Gregorian just different ways of stating them. Zginder 2008-05-22T02:10Z (UTC)
Yeah, 'tis the same. Which system do you think we should use, Zginder? · AndonicO Engage. 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) Actually AD and BC are based on the Christian religion and Christian Calenders so are not the same as CE and BCE. The Jewish religion for example has used BCE and CE for sometime now. It uses the same finish and start point but CE and BCE have no specific religious connotations. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 10:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the numbering system, the numbers stay the same: 3 AD = 3 CE; 3 BC = 3 BCE. · AndonicO Engage. 10:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
apologies, thought you were talking about CE AD etc. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 13:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries. So at the moment, we have 2 for BC/AD, and 1 for BCE/CE, correct? · AndonicO Engage. 13:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I vote Gregorian AD/BC, for the same reasons as those we discussed earlier (it is the one with which most readers are familiar, the one which most of the article's sources seem to use, etc). I also notice that the year articles on Wikipedia use BC (eg. 20th century BC), so if we ever link to them it will bypass redirects. --Grimhelm (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Both are Gregorian. The Gregorian calendar is the calendar of 12 months and 365.2425 days. What you are supporting is Anno Domini and not Common Era. Zginder 2008-05-22T22:10Z (UTC)

(outdent) So 3 for BC/AD and 1 for BCE/CE, so far. · AndonicO Engage. 00:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This should not be a vote, but I prefer Anno Domini (AD/BC). Keep in mind that AD goes before a date AD 2008 while all others go after. Zginder 2008-05-23T20:30Z (UTC)
Sometimes voting is not evil; lets us know where we stand. ^Roger on the "AD" being after the date. · AndonicO Engage. 20:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage.

I'm working on some organizational changes here; it's a mess right now though, needs transitions... if this turns out alright, I'll leave another note here, and maybe we can implement the changes into the main article. (Note: if anyone wants to help, please feel free to.) · AndonicO Engage. 11:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've pasted in the changes I made; the article isn't A-class anymore, but it'll be easier to get it to FA. · AndonicO Engage. 14:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, why isn't it A-class anymore? Do we need to have another review? Nice job on the re-organization, by the way. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, however, that "nice job" has left us with a desperate need for copyediting, since the transitions are all messed up. The only thing that's better is that it's chronological, but other than that it's a mess. Akin to mending a broken bone, but leaving behind a temporary cast, I suppose. · AndonicO Engage. 15:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
At least it makes chronological sense. Perhaps we should make a checklist of stuff to go over before FAC?

Here's a proto-list:

  • Clean up transitions.
  • Check references.
  • Copy edit - repeatedly.
  • Make sure it conforms to MOS.

That's the basic idea, but I'm a bit concerned about the section 500 BC - 0 AD. Because it's really long, I was thinking that it would be a good idea to subdivide it based on device. Thoughts? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you meant 0 AD-1500 AD. Good idea; one question though, should we divide based on device (it would be somewhat choppy, I think?), location (might mess up the chronological order), or further divide it by time (complicated)? I agree with your proto-list, we're still not there (I'll try to find a few page numbers for the refs tomorrow). · AndonicO Engage. 22:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that either would work; if we organized it by country then it would be in a sort-of chronological order, because Egypt was early on, Greece and Rome were later, etc., but after the really early years it gets a bit confusing. If we organized it by device, and organized the devices by the time when they were used, it would be a viable option. Perhaps another opinion would be a good idea? Keilana|Parlez ici 04:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the chronological order is a mess. I really did prefer the previous format. bibliomaniac15 05:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a mess now, but it had to be done, and will be easier to read once we copyedit a few more times. In any case, someone at FAC would have complained about the non-chronological order (again). · AndonicO Engage. 09:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so we have two possible organizations: by device and by region. Which looks best? · AndonicO Engage. 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Region looks better at this point, in my opinion. bibliomaniac15 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)