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 Corsair
February The Clipper Ship Era
March Association Football and How to Play It
April Daisy Miller
May Romanes Lecture
December A Christmas Carol
  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|May 2014}} 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 Water Babies[edit]

1915 edition of the 1862-63 children's novel by Charles Kingsley. One of several from User:ShakespeareFan00/Adventures List. All famous works in the appropriate fully-validated condition on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Per my comment in Jane Eyre section below: I don't think we should feature insignificant editions. Hesperian 13:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I like this text, but the biggest drawback is do we need to link to the book's front cover? It's a pretty cover, but it jars me a little bit because it doesn't "match" with the white background of the page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Water Babies--The book's front cover and 1st image would look good if they were cleaned images. They are as dirty as the original book after years of use and abuse. I believe that when the book was new those images looked very good. Nobody took the time to clean those images. They're just smaller copies of the used book. —Maury (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Story of the Treasure Seekers[edit]

First edition (1899) of the children's novel by Edith Nesbit (which was also first in the "Bastables Series"). Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I like this, but there are a number of formatting irregularities, such as lines indented much too far, odd font sizing and spacing that I'd want to see corrected before featuring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you elucidate? I can't see any oddities like these in the first two chapters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Look for example at DjVu pages #19 and 21 (file pages, not those page numbers). You may have to open an editing window to see just how weirs some of this is. There is page text in page headers, for example. There were a lot of others I recall seeing, but I'm not spotting them right off. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland[edit]

1866 edition of the 1865 children's novel by Lewis Carroll. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for December 2014 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
First edition of the 1843 Christmas novella by Charles Dickens. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The book, A Christmas Carol, is a wonderful book but also well-known as is Alice In Wonderland, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, &c. Some books are so well-known that any surprise or new knowledge is already well-known. These types of well-known books regardless of the date printed and copyrighted are well-known and timeless. One artist even made a life-size sculpture of her daughter stepping through a Looking-Glass using real glass. These books are that well-known. I once had all three stories on Internet with my own hand-colored images long ago when there was a cry by parents and teachers for some children's books. At that time many webpage makers blacked out their web pages as protest against being told, or suggested, what should be on Internet. I went the other direction and created a Library of several of these books for Cornerstone Networks (CStone.Net), an ISP. So, there is some early Internet history for everyone here. These kinds of books are so well-known that they are constantly repeated as originals and are timeless. The only thing different is how the original stories are modified. But the stories are not new and never will be. —Maury (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, but save for December next. Moondyne (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, support; great to be featuring a first edition of such a famous work. Hesperian 03:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Syn[edit]

An adventure story by Russell Thorndike. It's the start of a series with some spin-off media, although this instalment might be the only part in the public domain. This was finished as part of the tenth anniversary contest. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merged nomination: American edition of the 1915 adventure novel by Russell Thorndike. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for April 2014 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Daisy Miller: A Study was Henry James' breakthrough story, the story that made his name. It was first published in an English magazine in 1878, and promptly pirated into the American market by two different American serials. Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879) is the first book edition of this work, and the first authorized American edition of any form. James' revised the magazine text for publication here, making this one of the distinct authoritative texts for this story. Our transcription is fully validated, and based on a reasonably good scan. Hesperian 03:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Maury (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This was a very difficult work to get. It deserves our support beyond what Hesperian has written and worked on as well as by myself, Ineuw, and George Orwell III and the others who validated this work. Yes, it was hard to get and it is grand to read. Besides, Daisy Miller is very pretty. This book could have been lost to the world if not for the one copy on Gobble. It is far beyond a game of football which is an everyday thing and which perhaps none of us here ever play now. I call that game "Soccer". Daisy Miller will be a good read even if you are 60-100 years old.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solomon7968 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportClockery Fairfeld [t·c] 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)