fix link |
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) no intention to upset, just to shake |
||
Line 252: | Line 252: | ||
******Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to <s>attack</s> mischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''ЭLСОВВОLД'''</i></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
******Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to <s>attack</s> mischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. [[User:elcobbola|<font color="red"><i>'''ЭLСОВВОLД'''</i></font>]] <sub>[[User talk:elcobbola|talk]]</sub> 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*******I have had cause in the past to point out your misunderstanding of international copyright law, or have you forgotten?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Deva_Victrix/archive1] --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
*******I have had cause in the past to point out your misunderstanding of international copyright law, or have you forgotten?[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Deva_Victrix/archive1] --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
*******Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*Comments on images: |
*Comments on images: |
Revision as of 19:26, 2 July 2008
History of timekeeping devices
- Nominator(s): User:Keilana, User:Bibliomaniac15, User:Anonymous Dissident, User:Grimhelm, User:Qst, User:AndonicO, User:J-stan, User:Zginder, User:Phoenix-wiki
Toolbox |
---|
This is the second Tzatziki Squad collaboration up for your scrutiny. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- <Chat moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive, and very interesting. Deserves to go to the main page. Congratulations! Idontknow610TM 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- What makes the following sources reliable?
http://www.worldtimezones.com/guides/measurements_of_timehttp://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Using%20Waterhttp://www.ubr.com/clocks/default/history-of-timekeeping/rees-s-clepsydra-1819.aspx- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced with the original book source. bibliomaniac15 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.yoshinoantiques.com/time.html- This one is a antiques dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.bandcantiques.com/items/438745/item438745store.htmlhttp://www.ilab.org/services/catalogues.php?catnr=913&membernr=1154http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=clockhttp://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/mechanicaltimekeeping.cfm- This one is a governmental body and doesn't cite its sources
- Corroborated with another reference. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This one is a governmental body and doesn't cite its sources
http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/wellscathedral/- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced with a ref from the official Cathedral site. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.articlesbase.com/accessories-articles/a-short-history-of-the-wristwatch-30209.html (lacking publisher also)- This one doesn't cite its sources and appears to be a aggregator site that just publishes articles Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This one doesn't cite its sources and appears to be a aggregator site that just publishes articles Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Quartz%20Clocks (also lacking publisher)http://www.awrtech.co.uk/timekeep.htm- Doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed (it was one of 2 references). Keilana|Parlez ici 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Atomic%20Clocks
Current ref 7 is lacking a publisher (Diogrenes Laertius..)- The publisher, H. G. Bohn, is already listed. Note that this translation by C. D. Yonge is in the public domain. bibliomaniac15 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
this deadlinksCurrent ref 31 is lacking a publisher (The water clock of 1088)- The publisher is already listed. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 36 Edward Chang Yung-Hsiang Lu is lacking a last access dateCurrent ref 62 is lacking a publisher (Paradiso Dante)- Publisher added. Note that this translation, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, is in the public domain. bibliomaniac15 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 and might be outdated.Current ref 66 (Wells Cathedral Clock, Science Museum) which Science museum?- Please check the publisher wikilinks. It refers to Science Museum (London). bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed it to make it a little more obvious. bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please check the publisher wikilinks. It refers to Science Museum (London). bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 75 "How Stuff Works article on pendulum clocks" the publisher is only given in the link title, it should be broken out.- Already fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 87 (COSC Contole Offciel Suisse) who is COSC?- Linked in publisher. See COSC. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since the title of the site is "Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres," the name of the organization and the publisher, I don't think it would be desirable to repeat it in the publisher. So, I think it would be better if we stuck with the abbreviation "COSC." bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Linked in publisher. See COSC. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 99 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online) the publisher is in the link title and the link title doesn't give the article title being linked to.- Fixed. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 101 (Battaglia Maurizio Introduction to GPS) is lacking a publisher- As a general concern, it's a bit odd for a generalist encyclopedia (Wikipedia) to link to another generalist encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) as a source.
- Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay.
- Working through the reference stuff now. Qst (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I never struck anything. Qst (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicO Engage. 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, I never struck anything. Qst (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Working through the reference stuff now. Qst (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please follow WP:TALK guidelines (and WP:FAC instructions) to correctly thread responses and avoid striking or altering other editors' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Gah, I really should join Tzatziki one of these days - I planned to a long time ago. Others will probably catch MOS issues so I'll focus on prose. I'm really, really picky about one MOS thing, though - why are years linked and centuries/decades not? Generally it's the other way around.
- "*The* history of timekeeping devices"? Why "the"? It sounds as if this is the only history of timekeeping devices in all... well, time. Why not "this"? Note that I might be wrong; this might be convention.
- Not sure about this - left it as "the" for a decision for the nominators. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Mainly because "this" would be more direct to the article; the article itself is focusing on the entire history of timekeeping devices across the world, so "this" would sound as if it was referring to a specific area. (Note, that wasn't a good explanation, but hopefully you'll understand.) Qst (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- "The system developed then—which remains in use today—was sexagesimal." - the em dashes disrupt the flow of the prose; so strong a disjunction isn't needed. Commas will do.
- "They were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, however, their use continued outside of Egypt, especially in Greece." - not a complete sentence.
- "Mechanical clocks became necessary because relying on the sun had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear days, cast no shadow at night, and the length of hours varied depending on the season." - if one is skimming the lead, that looks like three things. Suggest rephrasing as "[...] had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear as they cast no shadow at night and the length of hours varied depending on the season."
- "Mechanical clocks, in all of their varieties, were the standard modern timekeeping device." - "were"?
- "From the turn of the 14th century, until the middle of the 20th, they contained various escapements, which transferred rotational energy into discrete motions." - "until the middle of the 20th" doesn't need to be preceded by a comma.
- Redundancy: "In the twentieth century,
a variety ofnew methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators, atomic clocks, and the common wristwatch." - More redundancy: "Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device, such as a falling weight or rotating beater." - "some" is not really needed, it could be replaced with an article like "a".
- "This has inspired several modern replicas, including some in London's Science Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution." - no comma needed before "and the Smithsonian...".
- Since this article is primarily written in American English (if I remember correctly), there are serial commas. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- "the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- This has been fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- "the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Since this article is primarily written in American English (if I remember correctly), there are serial commas. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Still more redundancy: "The astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace, among
someother individuals, modified the dial of his pocket watch to decimal time."
Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done with everything above. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - prose looks good except for the one remaining unaddressed up above (the one biblio responded to), address Tony's issues below though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quiteOppose. 1a
- The prose is mostly good, but needs a careful copy-edit throughout before it reaches the required "professional" standard. I did a few spot-checks.
- I've changed a few pet-hates like
upon andin orderto. - Caption: "water thief."—The dot must come after the quotemark (MOS).
- "While the Greeks and Romans did much to advance water clock technology, shadow clocks were not abandoned."—Why the passive voice? "they did not abandon ...".
- "Others also wrote of the sundial in the mathematics and literature of the period."—"Also" is redundant and has the opposite effect to that intended (it weakens the flow).
- Unnecessary passive again: "Later, the largest sundial ever built was constructed by the Romans". And more. You need a good reason to use the passive voice, and it's much too much in evidence throughout. TONY (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed the issues you've mentioned. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed a few pet-hates like
Rejoinder—you may have fixed the issues I mentioned, but I made it clear they were spot-checks only. I was expecting a copy-edit throughout the article. And you haven't even fixed the overuse of the passive voice: it took four seconds for me to find "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Do you know how to change it to active? "Other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims, developed shadow clocks during this time". Passive is all over the place. And immediately above that:
There were also other problems, however, which were never solved. One of these was temperature, as water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze. Another, that the water clock did not account for the fact that the length of days and nights changes throughout the year. Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons.
Keep striving for simplicity and plainness in the prose:
However, other problems were never solved: one was temperature, since water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze; another was that the water clock did not account for the changing length of days and nights throughout the year, leading to variable accuracy.
Can you coopt a word-nerd or two from the edit history pages of similar articles (try FAs first)? You can tell who's a nerd from their edit summaries. Ask nicely, and you might strike a few new Wikifriends who'll be collaborators now and in the future. TONY (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'll go through it one more time, once I've finished with the refs Ealdgyth pointed out above (because the content is likely to change a bit, or the wording may need to be altered). · AndonicO Engage. 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed all inline citations. · AndonicO Engage. 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Eep, meant logical quotations. · AndonicO Engage. 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed all inline citations. · AndonicO Engage. 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- Consistency is missing in a few places; for instance, page numbers need to either be "p 10", "p. 10", or "p.10", but not all of them.
- The following reference is completely broken and shows as plain text: {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Clock|title=Merriam-Webster Online:
- Fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments Since I know how much of a pain it was to fix all the refs at Cannon, I'll make the appropriate changes myself. I do have some other concerns that I believe should be addressed.
- Ref 8 – no page numbers.
- Ref 9 – no page numbers.
- Ref 10 is a book. I've converted this to {{cite book}}. One question, how is 10a used as a reference for "Among the first confirmed shadow clocks were ancient Egyptian obelisks, first constructed around 3500 BC; the oldest existing sundial—not in the form of an obelisk—is made of green schist, and is also Egyptian"? I couldn't find anything from this reference to corroborate this statement.
- "By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac15 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, is 3500 BC for the obelisks cited (all the refs are citing the sundial)? · AndonicO Engage. 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I meant ref 9a. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed: that made no sense whatsoever, and it didn't say sundials were invented in Egypt. · AndonicO Engage. 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed 9b, as well: also irrelevant. · AndonicO Engage. 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- 9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- 9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicO Engage. 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I was under the impression that there were other refs for that sentence. Guess I mistook that for the three other refs that surrounded 9a. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- 9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicO Engage. 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- 9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed 9b, as well: also irrelevant. · AndonicO Engage. 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed: that made no sense whatsoever, and it didn't say sundials were invented in Egypt. · AndonicO Engage. 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I meant ref 9a. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, is 3500 BC for the obelisks cited (all the refs are citing the sundial)? · AndonicO Engage. 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- "By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac15 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 12 – no page numbers.
- Ref 14 – no page numbers.
- Done (apparently: refs 14-22 have page numbers). · AndonicO Engage. 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some of the ref numbers might be off by one or two (I believe a ref was added/removed after my edits). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Done (apparently: refs 14-22 have page numbers). · AndonicO Engage. 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 23 – no page numbers.
- Ref 24 – no page numbers.
- Ref 29 – no page numbers.
- Ref 31 – no page numbers.
- Ref 34 – what makes this reliable?
- Ref 37 – no page numbers.
- Ref 48 – no page numbers.
- Ref 51 – no page numbers.
- Ref 53 – no page numbers.
- Unreliable (a dictionary of sorts; the part that was cited was an old version of our article): removed. · AndonicO Engage. 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 55 – no page numbers.
- Ref 56 – no page numbers.
- Found. Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ref 64 – no page numbers.
- Ref 65 – no page numbers.
- Ref 70 – what makes this reliable?
- Ref 74 – no page numbers.
- Ref 75 – no page numbers.
- Ref 88 – what makes this reliable?
- Ref 89 – no page numbers.
- Ref 90 – no page numbers.
This is it for now. I'll leave more prose-related comments in the future (maybe). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I stopped saying which refs I fixed, since it was somewhat pointless... anyway, I went through all the books, and tried to find page numbers. I found them for all, except those which weren't on Gbooks (around five or so, I think), and a PDF document at the end. · AndonicO Engage. 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comments. I don't think this article is quite there yet, and would benefit from someone going through it again. Just a few examples:
- "In the 20th century, new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators ...". When were the later quartz oscillators invented?
- "While accurate, shadow clocks relied on the sun ...". Shouldn't that be "Although' accurate ..."?
- "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), proving that they were used in ancient Egypt, possibly earlier than anywhere else." This reads very awkwardly to me. Why not something like "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), suggesting that they were first used in ancient Egypt."?
- "... hourglasses could be reused by turning it over again." There really ought not to be simple grammatical errors at this stage.
- "... making the reading of the clock more precise and facile." Are you happy with the word "facile" here? Not sure that I am.
- "Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons." Shouldn't that be "clock's accuracy"?
- "... unlike water, this element would not freeze under normal circumstances". Makes it sound like mercury refused to freeze, rather than simply did not freeze.
- "The oldest working clock in the world is Salisbury cathedral clock, which dates from about 1386, and has most of its original parts." Leave out the part between the commas to see why this doesn't work.
- "a popular watch of most American airmen was the A-11" Wouldn't something like "the A-11 was a popular watch with most American airman" be better?
- ... it does not account for leap seconds or other corrections which are periodically employed to systems such as Universal Coordinated Time"> Should that be applied instead of employed? Or employed by?
- "When turned over, a flow of grains of sand passed from the upper one to the lower through the hole. As the downward current of sand was constant ..." Perhaps a good example of Fowler's elegant variation. Current and flow don't quite mean the same thing, so don't be afraid to repeat flow by saying "As the downward flow of sand was constant...".
- I echo Tony's point about overuse of the passive voice. Sentences like this: "The oldest documentation of the water clock is from the tomb inscription ..." make the prose feel stodgey.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I only fixed a few things I stumbled across. I'll try to take a more thorough look through the article later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm about ready to support now if one additional thing is fixed, consistent use of metric->imperial conversions. From Early Western mechanical clocks: "box-like iron frame, measuring about 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) square". From Candle clocks: "each 12 inches (30 cm) high". From Early mechanical clocks: "Zhang implemented the changes into his clock tower, which was approximately ten meters tall, with escapements keeping the clock turning". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Enough has been done to the prose to satisfy me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per criterion three:
- Image:Susong.gif: Image asserts it is redrawn (i.e. derivative) of an original found in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a work very much under copyright. Where is support for the claim of publication under the Free Art License ({{FAL}})?
- Image:Salisbury 02.jpg claims to be "by Jason Hopwood"; uploader, however, is "Jasenlee" (i.e. Jasen Lee). How can we confirm uploader and author are the same person or that Jason Hopwood has indeed released the image under the indicated license?
- Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG: what is the copyright status of the painting? Freedom of Panorama in Poland is limited to "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" (i.e. outside). If the painting is under copyright, this is a derivative work.
- Image:Relogio stDumont.jpg: appears to be a copyvio (see here).
- Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
AO – I found the source for Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg, I've added it on the page. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)- Not the same image. · AndonicO Engage. 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I closer look reveals that its not the same image. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- The painting is too old to be copyrighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are
pretendingclaiming to uphold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)- Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to
attackmischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)- I have had cause in the past to point out your misunderstanding of international copyright law, or have you forgotten?[1] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to
- To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are
- What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments on images:
- Image:Salisbury 02.jpg now seems to have been removed from the article, but the authorship claims from above were valid, I believe.
- Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG - I would respectfully disagree with Elcobba and suggest that the inclusion of the painting is de minimis, though I agree it is borderline. (For those unfamiliar with the concept, see the proposed guideline Commons:Commons:De minimis.)
- Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg does indeed need a verifiable source.
- All other images look good to me, copyright-wise. Kelly hi! 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)