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
2015
January The Russian School of Painting
February Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Notes
  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.

Information[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

  • 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|February 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.

Nominations[edit]

For older nominations, see the archives.

The Russian School of Painting[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for January 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The Russian School of Painting (1916) by Alexandre Benois, translated by Avrahm Yarmolinsky would be a great selection. We seldom feature books on art, and this one is a survey of Russian painting right up the the point of the Soviet era (with full-color images of paintings included), written by a prominent and influential Russian artist.

Captain Nemo did a great job in selecting and proofreading this work. The only hangup is that there are about 50 pages waiting to be validated. Once the remainder of the volume is validated, I'd love to see this featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EncycloPetey's statement on The Russian School of Painting. I have looked it over in the recent past but do not recall if I added any validations or not.

EncycloPetey, why not join together and get this small and excellent work validated? I have already started on it. Kindest regards to all, —Maury (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maury, no, you haven't added validations (until recently) on this work. Nearly all of the validation is mine, although K. Wright did a swath through the later chapters as well. I have been doing validation, a bit at a time, since the work was proofread. ;) Thanks for the assistance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I just started today. I also noted that your name was on the image work I saw. I didn't look back to see who has done all of the validations because I prefer to move forward and complete the validations today if possible. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I helped to get the images done while Captain Nemo proofread the text. Again, thanks for the help in this work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
You all are very welcome with my very small part. Captain Nemo [Omen] seems fast and accurate. He must type with two hands and not have to look at his keyboard as I do. It is all validated now after you finish correcting my validations. Yes check.svg Done Shrug....walking away... —Maury (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I support this for featured text. One thing that'd be nice is to link to each individual painting listed in this work (if it exists on Commons). If I can get some free time, I'll help out with that.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
All of the images are located on Commons; that's where they display from. They are not located here on Wikisource. If you click on on of the images, it gives you a link to its information page on Commons. There's no need to add more links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I meant that the book refers to works which don't have pictures already in the book (e.g., this page which talks about Polenov's Moscow Courtyard). I intended my comment to be create links to these works, so that a reader can merely click on the link to see a picture of the painting and know what is being referred to.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how that would work, since you'd be linking text to an image that might (or might not) exist, without actually displaying it. In prepping the images that do appear in the book, I found that there were quite a few that didn't exist at Commons. Given that this work was published prior to the October Revolution, it is possible that some of those works mentioned no longer exist. The ideal situation would be to link to articles on Wikipedia about each work mentioned, but Wikipedia does not have many articles about individual Russian paintings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have a vague idea of what you two are writing about and I support the book as a Featured Text. To add image links to the text is it not possible to upload those paintings not displayed in the book to wiki-commons under "Russia", "Russian Art" (whatever), and then link to them as desired? Too, would that negate the book as a Featured Text? —Maury (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Adding images to a book (that were not originally in the book) is discouraged whether or not a text is featured. There is an added difficulty of finding the paintings that are mentioned, but not shown. Some pieces of art are created in more than one version; the opening portrait of Nicholas II, for example, was painted by the artist in more than one way, so that there is more than one painting he did in that same pose, with similar composition, but with very different brush strokes. Some of the paintings were hard to track down even with a copy of the image shown, because names of paintings are not always given by the artist, but sometimes by critics. A single painting may thus have several different titles, and the Russian names that were translated as part of the book will not always be the same as the names given to those paintings by English-speaking art historians. There would have to be a lot of interpretation and guesswork. It might be better to create a separate annotated edition of this book, and work in the additional illustrations there, rather than try to fit them in to the current version of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I was never proposing adding the art themselves, just links to them. Kind of as we add links to works on Wikisource when another work mentions it in the text. I merely wanted to give curious readers a way to view a work that didn't have an illustration while still respecting the integrity of the book. But it seems a bit more complicated to do, so maybe it's not worth it. Still, I support it as a featured text.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I view the solution as simple. Simply find the paintings on Internet to make sure you have enough then make a Category on Commons such as Art, which probably already exists, make a sub-category on Russian art if it is indeed all Russian art, upload the images there on Commons->art->Russian art or Russia or the title of your book, and then hyperlink to the text here in your book. There is no problem with this. —Maury (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for February 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This was a PotM, and I just realized it's also been validated. The court diaries of the period covered are considered both important historical documents, as well as literature in their own right. I've taught history classes with a unit on feudal Japan, and the textbook we used had a whole section dedicated to expounding upon these diaries. In addition to having historical importance and being good reading, this translation of the diaries comes with many fine illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A true delight to read. I've read this as an ePub on my eReader as a further validation process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I noted some discrepancies in font size of poetry entries in the text (primarily, if not exclusively, in the first chapter). I can go through and make sure all the poetry is set to 92% as per the example on the Project discussion page... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I looks like the poetry font size has been fixed so I support this for FT.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Problems of Philosophy[edit]

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]

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)

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)