Wikisource:Featured text candidates

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured texts (candidates)
Shortcut:
WS:FTC
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
2014
January The Corsair
February The Clipper Ship Era
March Association Football and How to Play It
April Daisy Miller
May Romanes Lecture
June Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
July Doctor Syn
August Tyrannosaurus and Other Cretaceous Carnivorous Dinosaurs
September
October Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed
November
December A Christmas Carol
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|January 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 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)

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)

Tyrannosaurus and Other Cretaceous Carnivorous Dinosaurs[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for August 2014. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 13:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Short but sweet, this text is the scientific paper that described and named Tyrannosaurus rex. It is therefore of significant scientific and cultural importance. Since there are relatively few scientific texts on Wikisource compared to literary and historical ones, it fills a void in the site's coverage of sources. The use of links to historical scientists, anatomical terms, geologic units, etc highlights the power of the Wikisource model better than other kinds of texts. Its ties to Wikipedia content will help bring in traffic and may foster inter-wiki dialogue. I think it will make a fine addition to Wikisource's library of featured texts. Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: It meets the FT requirements, formal (validated scan, etc) and informal (interesting, significant, etc). We really don't have many academic papers in any condition and this would be the first to be featured. Plus I just like Tyrannosaurus rexes. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good text with images etc, and interesting too. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 17:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see the images cleaned up and optimized for loading. Right now they are very large png files that take a very, VERY long time to load. They are also very grainy and show as much of the paper texture as the illustration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I totally agree with EncycloPetey in that the images need to be cleaned. —Maury (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am appalled at the carping tone of the last two comments. Kindly offer constructive criticism, or better yet give an example of a "cleaned-up" or "optimized" image per your inadequately-stated standards. I freely admit to being a useless graphic artist and so unfortunately am not likely to be of use; but if I received this level of "support" I would be inclined to be quite offended. For shame! AuFCL (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In reference to _calling us out to put us down_ and specifically me, I marked "support" and then added that I agreed, and still do, with what EncycloPetey stated about "images". I do not see either his or my statement as "carping" a _person_. Be "appalled" and negative against people as much as you want. We gave honest statements on images and not people. Even now as I type this, I do not know who did that work. I only looked at the work and specifically the images - but not the editor. The comment was about images. I marked "support" because the work is good in my opinion and it is pleasing unusual. —Maury (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    (Sigh!) If you cannot figure out the difference between a personal attack and one upon and action then I am afraid there is no hope for you. For the record: this is an example of a personal attack. I hope you do not make a repeat lesson necessary. Also for the record, I stand by the original statement, but concede I could(should?) have worded it better. I will not pursue this conversation further in public forum. AuFCL (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    Amigo, let us drop it because we just have different views. I know what I felt. Please see the last message on my talk page if and only "if" you wish to have another viewpoint and a rule for what transpired. —Maury (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I've re-derived both images and run them through Irfan to clean-up the background. I'm not entirely happy with the skeleton image, but after an hour with a 1 pixel brush it's about as good as I can achieve. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, the images do now look clean and load much more quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not an excerpt from the paper, though. The work being nominated is actually complete. It seems unreasonable to expect users to go through hundreds of pages of unrelated publications just to get one individual paper recognized. Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't expect you to proof the entire volume; that would indeed be unreasonable. I just think it isn't best practice to extract a few pages from a volume; and our featured texts surely should be examples of best practice. Hesperian 14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Given that the papers in any given journal are unrelated to eachother I don't think we necessarily gain much by lumping them together when it's only by coincidence that they all ended up published together. It's not like I took an isolated chapter from a book or something, which I agree would definitely qualify as substandard practice. Abyssal (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
We do have standalone papers already and I don't think it's really necessary to do this (as the paper is a complete unit in itself). However, if we do go that way, the complete volume is here (there is also this scan, which is better quality, but the paper we want appears to be missing). It wouldn't be hard to transfer that to Commons and move the existing pages over. A slightly harder task would involve reconstructing the voume from the Digital Library of the American Museum of Natural History, which appears to have better quality scans than Google, or doing some mix-and-match of all of these.- AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The images are properly done now. Thank you one and all who worked on the text and the images for the sake of a better en.wikisource —Maury (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks for the cleaner images. I disagree with Hesperian about calling this an "excerpt". The paper is a complete work that happens to appear in a collected and edited volume. That's how scientific papers are done. It would be downright weird to feature an entire volume of a periodical, unless the volume was the first of an important one, was a themed issue, or contained multiple notable items (we've done this, but only in those exceptional circumstances). If it is felt that this paper is too short to feature for a month, then perhaps we could feature several papers on paleontology in the same way we've done for shorter works at Halloween. Showing that we have collected some key older works on palentology could be a big boost to our image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One single article might be OK as featured text. But we should anyhow put articles in the right context. In the last weeks several independent articles have been uploaded separately (e.g. from the American Journal of Science). We might as well upload one single file for the whole volume instead of single articles and start from there instead of scatter the work around and do (sooner o later) the clean-up and merging afterwards.--Mpaa (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for October 2014.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed" is an article by the late Adrianne Wadewitz published by the London School of Ecnonomics. The document is licensed as free-use by the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-SA-3.0). This document has been discussed on thousands of other webpages lately in the context of discussion about the meta:Gender gap. Thank you for your consideration for featured status. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Please check the Featured Text criteria: "The work must be completely proofread by multiple editors to ensure that it matches the original as precisely as possible." I see no indication that anyone has proofread this article against the original, let alone multiple editors. Until such proofreading happens, this text is not eligible to be featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, EncycloPetey (talkcontribs), perhaps you could help with proofreading and/or suggest other editors that would be good at this task? Your help would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The criteria are now met, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not convinced this is among the "best" we have to offer, but I have no objections to selecting it for Featured status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
My thanks to Clockery (talkcontribs) for the proofread, and the Support. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I thank Erasmo Barresi (talkcontribs) very much for kindly taking the time to be a 2nd proofreader, and for the Support. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's a great piece, and a fitting honor for Adrianne.--Ragesoss (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Ragesoss (talkcontribs), for your help contributing the photograph, and for your Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Russian School of Painting[edit]

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]

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)