Wikipedia:Peer review/Daylight saving time/archive1

Daylight saving time

The U.S. DST hoopla has died down, so now's a good time to do a peer-review for Daylight saving time. I'm a first-time editor trying to achieve "Featured article" status (why not be ambitious?). Some sample questions:

Is there too much detail and too many references?

Section order? For example, "Origin" doesn't come first, on the theory that people first want to know about DST before knowing its history; is this reasonable? Also, "Mnemonic" and "Name" are widely separated; is there a better or more-traditional order for this sort of thing?

Should there be explicit sizes for the thumbnails? The style guide says no, but the map and graph get a bit hard to read with the default sizes.

Eubulides 20:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bcasterline

Regarding your questions:

Definitely not. Some FAs have well over a hundred citations (see AIDS) so 30 is certainly not too many. As I say below, I think you could add more detail in some areas.
I think I would put origin first, benefits and drawbacks second, and when it starts and ends (technical details, really) third. If people are interested in only a specific topic they can use the table of contents. "Name" and "Mnemonic" are both short and could probably be combined -- maybe put that information before origin?
Thumbnails look pretty good to me at 1280x960. Smaller would be a problem. If they're left at default size the user can always set a personal size preference (in "my preferences").

Some other comments:

The intro paragraphs should be a summary of the article that follows. (See WP:LEAD.) In this case, I'd say it should be longer. The second paragraph, which is just a sentence, could use elaboration.
Under "When it starts and ends": I think the skewing of time zones could use some more explanation.
Reading through "Benefits and drawbacks", I get the feeling the author is more interested in the latter. For example, benefits are always introduced by "this study reported", whereas drawbacks are simply stated as fact. Some drawbacks (especially under "Complexity") aren't even sourced. So I think NPOV could use some work.
"Computing" is rather long for something that seems to me rather trivial. Is that really one of the core concepts?
Lots of stubby subsections throughout the article after "Origin". Expand or consolidate: if the topics deserve their own sections, they need more information; if they don't, combine them.
I would remove "Cultural references". (See WP:TRIV.)

This is an interesting subject and it'd be great to see it reach FA -- but I think it needs some more work, especially if it's controversial. Good luck. -- bcasterline • talk 22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick and careful review.

I'll raise the section-order issue in the talk page; the current order arose because people kept bugging us about details during last week's big DST change, but now that it's no longer a hot topic perhaps we can rethink this.
I will work on lengthening the intro.
The "benefits and drawbacks" section is hampered because there seem to be relatively few reliable sources on the "benefits" side; I asked for more cites on the talk page but so far no luck. I will work to remove bias from the wording, though.
"Computing" used to be waaay longer! I'll trim it down more; some of this can be moved to another page perhaps.
The sections "Mnemonic", "Associated practices", "Name" seem to be stubby in the sense you describe; I'll add something on the talk page about them. Or perhaps you are referring to all the subsections of "Benefits and drawbacks" as well? I suppose some of them could be combined too.
I have removed Cultural references.

Eubulides 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the page and have followed your suggestions as best I could. Thanks again for the review. I hope it's more suitable for FA status now. Eubulides 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bit unusual not to have a single wikilink in a three paragraph intro. Kaisershatner 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning that: I added some wikilinks. Eubulides 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]