Wikisource:Featured text candidates

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured texts (candidates)
This page hosts nominations for featured text status in accordance with the Featured text guidelines. A featured text should exemplify Wikisource's very highest standards of accuracy. If you nominate a text, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.

Any established user may nominate a text or vote (as long as it matches the criteria). Every month the nomination with the highest support ratio, weighted in favour of nominations with more numerous votes (equation forthcoming), will be chosen as featured text. All nominations with under 70% support after a week will be archived. The most promising nominations (up to 10) will be carried over to the next week, during which time established users may continue to place votes.

Featured texts edit
Date Text
January The Russian School of Painting
February Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan
March The Problems of Philosophy
April On the Determination of the Wave-length of Electric Radiation by Diffraction Grating
May Kopal-Kundala
  1. The Black Cat was originally featured, but this is now a disambiguation page, and featured status has been transferred to Tales (Poe)/The Black Cat.


Nominating a text[edit]

  1. Ensure that the text meets all the featured text criteria and style guidelines. Nominations that are flagged as not meeting the criteria will be unlisted after 24 hours, unless the criteria are met in that time.
  2. Note the nomination on the talk page by adding the template {{featured text candidate}}.
  3. Begin a discussion at the bottom of this page. Note your reason for nominating the text.
See also


  • If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an text's suitability for the Wikisource main page, unless such suitability can be fixed.
  • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>text</s>) rather than removing it.

Closing a nomination (administrators only)[edit]

  • Failed nominations
    1. Add a comment explaining why the nomination failed.
    2. Archive it.
    3. Place {{featured text not passed|year|title}} at the top of the work's main talk page (adding the year and heading of the archived discussion).
  • Passed nominations
    1. Add it to {{Featured text}} (inside the respective month) and {{featured schedule}}.
    2. Place {{featured}} on top of the work's main page {{header}} template.
    3. Place {{featured talk|June 2015}} at the top of the work's main talk page (changing the numbers to the appropriate date if not next month).
    4. Protect all the work's text pages.


For older nominations, see the archives.

The Problems of Philosophy[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for March 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm nominating The Problems of Philosophy for featured text. It's fully validated, looks nice, and even has a Librivox recording. The only issue for me is that the {{listen}} template covers up a portion of the first paragraph. I don't know if that's my browser or a defect in the template itself. Looking at our featured text history, it looks like we haven't done a philosophical work in quite some time.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree. Quality of the text looks good. No trouble with the {{listen}} template in my FF browser DutchTreat (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Determination of the Wave-length of Electric Radiation by Diffraction Grating[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for April 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I am nominating this work. It is fully validated and considered important in microwave optics and for the invention of the radio. Citations of this article in scholarly papers can be seen here. Hrishikes (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for next year, since we've already had a scientific paper featured this year.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks pretty good. But I think names of scientists should link to internal author pages not Wikipedia articles; and the article should be moved to (and contextualised at) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London/Volume 60/On the Determination of the Wave-length of Electric Radiation by Diffraction Grating. Hesperian 03:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    +1 to Hesp's comments, and I wouldn't link "diffraction grating" in a title of a work, partial linking of titles to articles should be avoided at all costs. Usually articles would be linked, so while this would be a self-reference, I think that it is a practice to be avoided. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
    Agree, but also I note that some of the Wikipedia links in the article are not to the English Wikipedia. Sarasin is linked to his biography on the German Wikipedia, presumably because there is not an English article. Linking to a foreign-language Wikipedia in the middle of an article is not best practice. It would be better to start a stub article on the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Studies of a Biographer[edit]

in 4 vols., fully validated, by Leslie Stephen, editor of and contributor to the DNB. Compilation of studies on notable authors, including a nice 'stroll' "In Praise of Walking." Thought it might make a nice addition to Featured Text, as well as a good way to highlight/advertise the DNB project. Stephen "was at his best in a sort of condensed biography, rather than in strictly literary criticism. Examples of this special gift may be found in his Studies of a Biographer..." (Outlines of Victorian Literature, 1913) As nominator, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I am in favour of works that I transcribed smiley, it also enables us to highlight one of the series and point at the other three volumes. I like LJB's idea of emphasising works that we also have worked upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I would like to see consistent formatting, among the four vols, for titles and references (different sizes right now). I can help, should 1 be as 2,3,4 or viceversa?--Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that titles should be x-larger (which most of them are), and convert to smallrefs (which most of them are). Whatever the consensus, I can help out with either/or... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I went ahead and fixed title font size/spacing, and switched to smallrefs in the Mainspace pages. It's not necessary to switch to smallrefs in the Pages too, is it? If so, I'll have a go at it, but am hoping it is sufficient to merely make the changes to the Mainspace pages...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
As long as the Pages are consistent, it should be OK, but Featured Texts should represent the very best we have to offer. So if there's something you think ought to be improved, then please do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Pages are now consistent. Smallrefs are not used in the Pages, but are converted to smallrefs in the Mainspace pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For June, maybe? C. F. 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Calcutta: Past and Present[edit]

The work is highly notable since publication (cited here as reference) and written from a somewhat unusual perspective (see 2nd para of preface). Adorned with rare engravings and photographs. Also meets criteria of multiple contributors (see talk page of index). Hrishikes (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On a first pass, the one thing that stands out to me as an issue prior to featuring this work is that many of the images need to be straightened to the vertical and/or more closely cropped. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: can you please do it? I am not good at tinkering with images. Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have good image software at this time, and incremental rotations of images are something I cannot do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll see if I can do it, if I can get the time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Wild Goose[edit]

This is a very special text. It is a hand-written newspaper produced by Irish convicts between October 1867 and January 1868 onboard the British convict ship, Hougoumont, which sent to exile 62 Fenians and 108 others who had been selected from the prisons at Dartmoor, Pentonville, Chatham, Millbank, Portsmouth and Portland to the penal settlement at Fremantle, Western Australia. All had endured extreme prison suffering before transportation which was relaxed slightly during the voyage thanks to a kindly chaplain, Fr. Bernard Delaney of Dublin who provided materials for the enterprise. Miraculously, the original manuscript survives and is currently kept at the Mitchell Library in Sydney. It was only recently digitised. As far as I know this is the first complete transcription. This nomination may fail criterion 2 (multiple proofreaders), but I hope that some extra attention may resolve that. Transcribing 45000 words of handwriting is a hard slog. Moondyne (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support It is worth featuring, after validation. Hrishikes (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This work is not eligible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: I don't know whether there's something I'm not seeing, but how exactly is this text ineligible? —Clockery_Fairfeld 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you look at the criteria? "The work must be completely proofread by multiple editors..." Since this work has not met that criterion, it is not eligible to be considered. The nominations page is the place to nominate works for consideration once they have met the criteria. It is not a place to seek help with validations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, okay. —Clockery_Fairfeld 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support when validating is done. I've tried doing a bit myself. @Moondyne: "Hard slog" is an understatement! ;) —Clockery_Fairfeld 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for featured author[edit]

In the manner of w:Wikipedia:Featured topics, I propose Featured Author and Featured Foreign-language Author here. Instead of monthly, this can be considered on 3- or 6-monthly basis. For consideration of the community, I also propose Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Author:Jagadish Chandra Bose in the foreign author category. A substantial amount of their works has been added in recent times: some proofread, some validated, some under process. More knowledgeable members can put forward nominations under the overall featured author category, which will, of course, include foreign authors too. I don't know if such a proposal is in order or not; anyway, here goes. Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "3- or 6-monthly". The "Featured Topics" at Wikipedia is a static list that never appears on the Main Page. The list simply identifies those groups of related articles that have all passed the GA/FA evaluation process. Our equivalent process is sourcing/validation. So, what is it you are proposing? Also, since this is not about Featured texts, the discussion should probably appear in the Scriptorium so that everyone will see it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It was only a draft proposal. We don't have to do it exactly like Wikipedia. The nitty-gritties, like criteria, display, implication etc can be discussed if the idea generally sounds good. Seems that it is not. OK, no problem. Hrishikes (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Although, I have noticed that featured author item does exist here, as in Portal:Poetry. Hrishikes (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That is something done by a person who has chosen to tackle a particular Portal. Most portals don't have that. . . mostly because most of our portals have yet to achieve that kind of quality. That instance of a "Featured Author" also requires that a large body of works by that author are available on Wikisource, and that someone volunteers to maintain the portal and keep a rotation going. It's a Herculean task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for May 2015 --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
* Possibly the first fully validated translated Bengali novel here.
  • Done as a PotM, so meets the criteria of multiple contributors.
  • Position in original language: still holds the place of honour for its linguistic grace. Along with its immediate predecessor, Durgesa Nandini, effectively set the trend of the novel in Bengali literature. Cinematised many times in various Indian languages.
  • Genre: Historical romance in the background of sixteenth century India, contains contemporary social and political intrigues, a main character portrayed as a courtesan in the imperial court and also a childhood friend of the future empress of India.
  • How different: scholars have found it to be a mix between Shakespeare's The Tempest and Kalidasa's Abhijnan Shakuntalam. But the character of the heroine is significantly different from either Miranda or Shakuntala. The author makes a psychological experiment with the character of Kopal-Kundala. She was brought up in a dense jungle by a Tantric ascetic, and on marriage and coming to a city, she is unable either to adjust to the city life or to love her husband. In the luxury of the city, she still craves her sylvan milieu.

Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This work is not eligible as it fails style guidelines. It seems that someone went through and annotated at least some of this book instead of keeping this copy clean and creating a second annotated copy. The Haz talk 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Where are you seeing a requirement for an unannotated copy in the FT requirements? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked, one criterion was that it has to meet the WS style guide. That's what I was referring to. I helped proof this text and really like it. Someone went through and annotated the clean copy we had instead of making a new annotated copy. Plus, do we really want the annotated copy as a featured text? I would love to see the clean copy as FT though. The Haz talk 12:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, but where did you check that you found this criterion? I do not see it, nor have I ever seen such a criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Criterion #1. It's on the Style guide, but I just noticed that it's always been proposed but never finalized. The Haz talk 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support As far as I know, not a single Indian text has ever been an FT. Good to see the gap being filled. —Clockery_Fairfeld 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

n.b. I am selecting this work for May, since we have not yet had a novel this year. We usually have several, and I wish to see that they don't all come at once at the end of the year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Gigantic Horned Dinosauria From the Cretaceous[edit]

The original description of the widely beloved dinosaur Triceratops and the lesser known but scientifically significant Nodosaurus, the armored dinosaur which has its own family named after it. This archive of Othniel Marsh's original 1889 scientific paper has been tastefully and subtly wikilinked to clarify confusing terms and enable users easy access to up-to-date information on topics discussed therein and relevant authors and works cited in the text. Abyssal (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a non-wikilinked clean copy (required)? The Haz talk 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, here are the clean versions of the pages: page 1, page 2, and page 3. Abyssal (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeHazmat2 was not asking about a clean source file, but about a clean and un-wikilinked document proofread from those files. More importantly, I can see formatting problems right away. The work needs {{small-caps}} in several places, for starters. The work needs to be cleaned up to basic standards of formatting before it could be considered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Those revisions were validated. I've corrected the small caps problem (in some places the template was in use but not functioning because the text was written in all caps) and a few minor formatting problems. I can't find any more formatting discrepencies. I'm going to create a clean version manually that should get this text up to snuff in a few hours. Abyssal (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up now. Abyssal (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Well... mostly. I found several more style and textual problems, but have corrected those now. There remains one additional problem to be solved: The image caption states "natural size". So, is it? We need to ensure that any image labelled as "natural size" is displayed at the correct size. What is the size of the image in the original text? I cannot determine this solely from our electronic copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to correct those, and good catch with the "natural size". I think it should be fine to remove that caption since it will display at a different size on each monitor and at different screen resolutions anyway. The Haz talk 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Whilst at a simplistic level this is "true," from metadata on Commons one can determine the scan resolution (430x663pts) and if the worst came to the worst has anybody considered consulting user:Abyssal, or perhaps looked at the page size of the journal "American Journal of Science." Hmm? Laziness does not half explain this? unsigned comment by (talk) .
Maybe we could replace the caption with "image in original publication displayed at natural size" or a message to that effect? Abyssal (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally think this is a good idea, or just measure the original if you have it and put that in the caption. I'm not sure what that last "laziness" comment is about. Even if you can calculate the size it's supposed to be you won't be able to display it at that size anyway (again, screen size and resolution).
Instead of replacing the caption, what about using a tooltip, so that the notice will appear when the mouse hovers over the text, seems like a good idea. Since this sort of thing is likely to crop up again, we might even make some kind of notation in the template documentation about how we chose to handle this situation here. This is a sort of annotation, but in a situation like this one, I think it's necessarily part of out "Best practices" to annotate for the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I typically read on a tablet or e-reader, so perhaps I'm biased, but I'm not a fan of the tooltip idea in this case. Let's see what others think. The Haz talk 03:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)