Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gregorian calendar/archive1

Gregorian calendar edit

Fantastic article with many sources, which is a topic that many people would enjoy.--Fresh 19:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate and Support. (Fresh 19:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Object. No inline references yet (and is there a peer review we can look at?). Daniel Case 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further observations: The "Note" in the intro is the perfect example of something that should go in a footnote section, when one is added. And even with it, the intro is too short. Daniel Case 20:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Very interesting article, but no inline references, as per Daniel Case. In addition, there are a lot of loose sentences, especially towards the end of the article, in the "Numerical facts", which should be replaced by paragraphs. Schutz 00:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good solid article. Very factual. Impressive work. But only one reference? Heck, I've read at least fifty books on the calendar. Would gladly support with better sourcing of material. PedanticallySpeaking 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This truely is an interactive article, with plenty of information about the passage of time and, on a different scale, culture ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Popescui (talk • contribs) .
- Note that this argument in support of the article is the first and only contribution from this user. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only is it well written, it's got the best timelines I've ever seen on WP. Congratulations on a fantastic article. --PopUpPirate 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fantastic article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}10:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - needs a lot more refs, several sections, such the days of the week and numerical facts, need cleaning up, and poor prose - for example, from the lead: The Gregorian Calendar was devised because the mean year in the Julian Calendar was slightly too long. What is "slightly too long"? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Insufficient referencing, insufficient lead, insufficient prose. Fieari 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Difficult to read, and inadequately referenced. The lead, specifically, is not clear and summary, managing to confuse, while not nearly addressing the scope of the main content. The text, while not exactly "technical", is written in a somewhat convoluted, calendar-centric style that generally winds up sounding like a lot of jargon. Example, by the third sentence of the LEAD, an extended parenthetical note: "(Note: The papal bull Inter gravissimas was signed in the year 1581 for unknown reasons, but printed on 1 March 1582. Although the use of the date 1581 is often attributed to the supposed adoption by the papacy of a reckoning by which the year began on 25 March, other contemporaneous papal bulls have years that do not agree with March years, let alone years since a pope was named or other types of years.) Or, the second paragraph of the body: "Worse, the reckoned Moon that was used to compute Easter was fixed to the Julian year by a 19 year cycle. However, that is an approximation that built up an error of 1 day every 310 years. So by the 16th century the lunar calendar was out of phase with the real Moon by four days." And so on. There is lots of interesting information, but it needs better organization and editing...some compelling writing. Plus at least one or two general references. --Tsavage 02:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Lead is inadequate, no inlince citations, too few references (1!), can use more pictures.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]