Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Time/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time[edit]

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) %[reply]

Weak Support Great article, but weak on the references. Surely more than one was used! Lorty 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but object for the following reasons:
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
    • 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:
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Object
  1. Needs to cite sources with in-line citations
  2. Lead needs to be rewritten -- too abstract, does not summarize the article, starting with the second paragraph would make a better opening.
  3. I would prefer consistent section names: Physics of time, philosophy of time, units of time, etc.
  4. The See Also section needs to be considerably compacted -- it spans half the length of the article.
  5. The External Links section needs to be considerably trimmed -- Wikipedia is not a link farm. - Emt147 Burninate! 06:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per nom. Hezzy 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Time/archive1&oldid=212231898"