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.
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.
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.
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Selected for December. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I know it's a little way off yet but Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray would be a good featured text for December. Thackeray died in December 1863, making this December the 150th anniversary of his death. On top of that, Vanity Fair was a PotM earlier in the year. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Selected for November. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This text has finally been completed. Although we have had two other translations of Hammurabi's Code on the English Wikisource, this translation supersedes them in three points. (1) This translation is sourced; the other two have no source file. (2) This is the first translation of the Code made into English, and only the third to be done following the Code's discovery by modern archaeologists. (3) The publication of this translation is accompanied by detailed photographs of the entire original Akkadian text of the Code. Images of this Akkadian text previously did not exist on Commons. They are large image files that, when magnified, display readable source script of the original language. The English Wikisource is currently the only wiki to make use of these image files, and I think we should show off. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Selected for October along with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This text was first completed in 2006 by Stuartkonen, but the scanned copy was only uploaded and validated this year, in June to be precise. It is Wilde's first short story, and so is fairly well-known. Includes various full-page images and some other, smaller illustrations. This might be a good featured text for November, as Wilde died on November 30, 1900. Or maybe October, for Halloween. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Support, possibly for October/Halloween. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
* Support October and before Halloween + perhaps add "Sleepy Hollow" —Maury (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. I wish the leading image looked better, but I'm not sure what we can do about that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
After a little searching I found that JacketFlap has a photograph of the actual book (as does AbeBooks at present, although that is subject to change). The cover of the original was apparently in colour. The largest version of this I can find via Google Image Search is actually funny-pictures.feedio.net. At 320 x 500 this is smaller than the current image; I can't find anything at the same scale. There is a fidelity issue but the JacketFlap and AbeBooks confirm it's the same edition. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I wonder if the original was "in color" or black and white? The one that shows color may have been colored and therefore the cover could be under copyright. Authors do this with covers and the also change the Preface and place copyright on entire old book. I understand the original text would not be copyrighted. In any case do you all want the B/W image that I can repair or the Color image? I can correct images including color images. Is someone here going to get either of the images and download then upload either image? —Maury (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The ABE listings indicate that the color cover appears on the 1906 edition, which is the edition we have. So the "original" (1906 edition) had a color cover. I suspect that our source scan was done in black-and-white rather than color. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind working with that color image to get it on en.WS but what "source" shall I state it comes from? Does anyone here prefer anything specific like .png, .jpg, or whatever other format? What size in pixels is desired or should I simply upload a large enough image that can be made smaller by code? I ask this only because some are very particular whereas I am not so particular unless I need to be. Typically, I use .jpg images on WS. —Maury (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Commons prefers JPG for color photographs. The "source" can be given as a URL and name of the site from which the image was taken, but there can be issues with using someone else's photograph. I'm not clear whether that would be at issue in this instance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded the color cover, and as the whole book and its images are currently on WS, I've uploaded it over the previous file. Please revert if there are any issues.
On a related topic, per Maury, I've finished proofreading Sleepy Hollow. Any takers? —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Selected for October along with The Canterville Ghost. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
This short story was already here on Wikisource, but, on Maury's suggestion above, a scanned copy from 1864 (printed individually) was proofread in August and validated in September. It might be a good featured text for October (Halloween), along with The Canterville Ghost, and any others if they are completed in time. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment I know there are no votes for this one yet but I'm including it as part of the Halloween package with The Canterville Ghost (from which this grew). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)