The references are not consistently or correctly formatted; I'm be working on them and using the Harvard system in a consistent way. Ping me with objections if you have any. Thanks, Amitchell125 (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Under "Shadow clocks and sundials" is stated that "In Egyptian obelisks, constructed c. 3500 BC, are among the earliest shadow clocks." which is cited to be from Encyclopedia Britannica, which makes no such claims -- EB writes "The first device for indicating the time of day was probably the gnomon, dating from about 3500 bce. It consisted of a vertical stick or pillar, and the length of the shadow it cast gave an indication of the time of day." What is worse, according to obelisk the earliest known obelisk is from the rule of Senusret 1 who ruled from 1971 BC to 1926 BC or from 1920 BC to 1875 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gleb713 (talk • contribs) 17:28,2 January 2023 (UTC)
Just at a cursory glance, this article has numerous factual errors and omissions of important points; it should probably be removed from Featured Article status until these are corrected.
In conjunction with Amitchell125's excellent work upgrading the article, I looked at the article again and noticed some things I think could be improved. These are just my opinions:
Immediately under the heading "Ancient Egypt", it states "See also: History of the civil war", with a link to the article on the American Civil War. Nothing else under that heading has anything to do with the American Civil War, so I'm at a loss to understand why it's referenced there. Can anyone explain? Occam's Shaver (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's a little bizarre. Usually I sort BCE/BC issues out by looking for the earliest system but the article started out as a mess using both systems. The earlier discussions got buried in the archive but Here User:AndonicO, Grimhelm, and J-stan all supported BC/AD and only Keilana and Edmund Patrick didn't (albeit Keilana was rather forceful in reverting other users to her preference); here, same people, same deal; and here, Bibliomaniac15 and Zginder supported BC/AD and a consensus was reached. For what it's worth, I also support BC/AD as Keilana and Edmund Patrick's arguments are completely off: it's not any less religious and not any less biased and just as based on (incorrect) computations of Jesus's conception/birth/lunar phase whichever form is used.