Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2008

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Featured[edit]

The Black Cat[edit]

Short story by Author:Edgar Allan Poe. Has been proofread by two people. Let's get this on the main page!--BirgitteSB 20:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Done--BirgitteSB 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Balade to Rosemounde[edit]

The importance of w:Geoffrey Chaucer can't be understated, in discussing historical writings. This is a relatively short ballad he wrote, so doesn't have the "troubles" of longer stories, nor the "feeling cheated" by a six-line stanza. Rather than the "online websites" to critique and proofread against, I've been able to provide a facsimile of the original 1477 manuscript of the lesser-known Chaucer work.

  • Support, lesser-known works by widely-known authors are the shit. (self-nom) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 03:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, as it is currently, only double-English major students would care :-) It doesnt speak to the average person who looks at our front page. I think would need to be accompanied by a modern English version, or have lots of notes embedded. It would be nice if we could do pop-ups to explain words, but that usually has a horrible effect on copy&paste. Another solution would be to show the old and new side by side, but that would require the image size is reduced. John Vandenberg 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, my poor knowledge of <div> tags suggests they could be used to do a side-by-side comparison with a line down the middle, right? That'd be sexy if we could actually magically make three columns, one of the original text, one of the new text and one of the image somehow. Much thanks, Jayvdb made it sexy and fixed the problem! Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 06:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Doesn't pass criterion #3. What's the source of the original and the source of the translation? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Ummm...are you serious? It's in Chaucer's own writing. The translation is my own. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    An online version of the original is available from the Poetry Foundation. The scan of what seems to be the original is an excellent supplement.
    Sherurcij, Please provide translation and licensing data in the {{header}}. A release into the public domain or a CC-BY license would be better than the GFDL. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:46:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) It is worth being clear about the licensing; under what license is your translation ? As a result of it not having a license, I cant modify it without assuming to know your mind. I think it would be worth moving your translation to Balade to Rosemounde (Wikisource) where it can sport its own a PD or GFDL tag. From there, we can "include" it into the table where it is currently. John Vandenberg 04:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    It would be better to tag the page with {{translation license}} (example). Transcluding it from another page would defeat the purpose of the license template, since it would not be visible to readers. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:46:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Done, it's public domain (of course). Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Richard Francis Burton 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    Much better; thanks. Sources are all we have to establish our credibility, so they're critical, even when seemingly silly. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 18:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment' Recent changes have messed up the formatting for me and my considerably sized 18" monitor.. I now see the two version in tiny print side by side with a good amount of white space to the right. The image is right-aligned below all the text. The tiny text has always bothered me. I'm undecided about supporting a featured text that I struggle to read. But it is pointless to have tiny text when it doesn't even produce the desired effect for many readers.--BirgitteSB 16:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, beautiful! Quadell 23:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support but could the image of the original be put in a larger size, so that the length matches the two side-by-side text versions? Cowardly Lion 15:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support--Lookatthis 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • SupportZhaladshar (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Times/The Late Mr. Charles Babbage, F.R.S.[edit]

This is an interesting obituary about a colourful person who is one of the most important figures in computing history. The obituary, and the letters to the editor which I will also type up (see commons:Charles Babbage) are often cited as the only clues to his date of birth. John Vandenberg 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just just proofread this and found several errors. I think it still needs a third proofreader before it may be featured.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I am surprised at how many transcription errors I made. :-) John Vandenberg 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm 2/3 of the way through proofreading it myself. Does anyone know why "pound" seems to have been abbreviated "/."? At least, I think that's the symbol used--it's certainly not a £ pound sign. It it related to the w:Peruvian inti symbol "|/."? Quadell 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it comes from "L" and "/-"; see w:Pound sterling. John Vandenberg 15:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, now that I've finished proofreading. Quadell 18:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support now that it is fully proofread.--BirgitteSB 14:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Very nice. Cowardly Lion 00:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Lookatthis 15:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Is there no better scan of the obituary than what we have? It being a .gif has mangled some of the colors. And JPEG or PNG version would be better, if there even is one.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
    Done. — DarkFalls talk 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 16:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

South Africa Act 1909[edit]

I'd like to nominate the above text for FT status. This document is a crucial part of South African history - it was the first constitution of the newly united country, serving in that role until 1961. Length is the main thing that I can see as a potential problem - at present the complete Act amounts to around 100k. I weighed the option of putting each section of the Act into its own subpage, but in the end I decided that it is better to preserve readability/searchability by maintaining the unity of the piece. As noted on the talk page, the Act has been proofread in detail by myself and User:Andycarrs.

Xdamrtalk 02:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Looking over this, I have a question to make regarding the page. I wonder if we should quote the entire Wikipedia entry on our page here? That's a LOT of information put into the header and a lot to read. Common practice is to quote the first couple lines from Wikipedia (the "introductory material," for lack of a better word) and link to the article, so that if people want more information they can follow it if they like. Regardless, though, the link to the Wikipedia entry should be put in the header itself, using the {{wikipediaref}} template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

    I was responsible for both this and the Wikipedia article. Initially I was intent on putting the text of the Act into Wikipedia, until I found out the existence of Wikisource. Thereafter I culled the material from Wikipedia, leaving that article pretty stub-like. The header text was actually written specifically for this Wikisource article, it was only later that I decided that it could be copied over and used to flesh out the Wikipedia article a little.

    At the end of the day the Wikipedia entry, as it currently stands, barely scratches the surface of the subject. At the start of the year I had time on my hands to deal with this subject (that's when I wrote the Wikisource page), I've had less since, but the next few weeks should see me have time to finally sort out the Wikipedia entry. Once this happens there will be little of the present placeholder content left and all issues relating to the Act (its genesis, passage through Parliament, subsequent amendments, etc) will receive comprehensive treatment.

    As far as the Wikisource page goes, though I say it who shouldn't, the header sums up the genesis and the eventual end of the Act fairly accurately - I'm not certain that you could take too much away from it without affecting the value of the header as an introduction. I don't think that the length is too outrageous given the size and nature of the subject, though I'm willing to hear any suggestions.

    Xdamrtalk 12:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Important subject, text is correct and complete. Andycarrs 11:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Support.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The notes need to be trimmed of some unnessary details and given wikilinks. I suggest the text below, but feel free to do it otherwise:

    In the aftermath of the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), the United Kingdom annexed the South African Republic and the Orange Free State, two hitherto independent Afrikaner republics, to the British Empire. These new provinces, renamed the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony respectively, were added to Britain's existing South African territories—the Cape Colony and Natal. It was British government policy to encourage these four colonies to come together in closer union.

    *These political forces resulted in the 1908 National Convention, which settled on the terms of a executive, legislative, and economic Union. These proposals were transmitted to the British government, who duly prepared a Bill to give effect to these wishes. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 20 September 1909 and on the same day King Edward VII formally proclaimed that the Union of South Africa would be established on 31 May 1910.

    This Act served as the South African constitution until 1961, when South Africa became a republic and left the Commonwealth. The basic structure of the 1909 Act continued to live on in its replacement, the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act 32 of 1961. The last vestiges of the 1909 Act finally disappeared in 1983 when the apartheid-era government enacted a new constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 110 of 1983.

    --BirgitteSB 16:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
    Good call on the links - a bit of an omission on my part. How is it now? I've pruned the text a little here and there, but I've kept the "this aspiration was one that was also increasingly held by the Afrikaner population." in the 1st paragraph. This is actually quite an important point; in the aftermath of the War the white population was divided approx 60:40 Afrikaner to British. British policy would only work insofar as it was supported by the Afrikaner population - prior attempts by the UK to force union in 1907 had failed because of the lack of this support. I appreciate that this is just an introduction and we shouldn't be trying to write a full-blown article here; if it still strikes you as too detailed for the intro, or a bit of a pointless addition then it can be taken out.
    Xdamrtalk 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    I am happy with that. Good work!--BirgitteSB 14:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The "short title" mentioned in the text is South Africa Act, 1909; should the page be renamed to reflect this? Also, what does the first line "[9 Edw. 7. Ch. 9]" mean ? The notes field is still a bit too long in my opinion, and "w:1908 National Convention" does not exist. Also, on the talk there is mention of a tif "OCR scan file"; it would be good to have this broken up and uploaded onto the commons in a supported format; email me if you want a hand with this. John Vandenberg 07:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
UK Acts are almost invariably referred to in the XXX Act 2007 form - I think the addition of the comma is simply a turn-of-the-century drafting peculiarity. Additionally, most Wikisource/Wikipedia articles on UK legislation adopt this form for the page name so it seems to be something of a wiki convention.
[9 Edw. 7. Ch. 9] details the Parliamentary session in which the Act was passed and its chronology within the session. '9 Edw. 7.' tells us that it was the Parliamentary session held in the ninth year of the reign of Edward VII, 'Ch. 7' (ie 'Chapter 7') tells us that it was the seventh Act passed. This pleasantly arcane reference method is sadly no longer used. Modern practice (post-c1960) is to simply use the year rather than the regnal reference (eg. [2007 Chapter 1] rather than [55 Eliz. 2. Ch. 1]).
I'll contact you re. the OCR scan. (Oh, don't worry, I'm working on the National Convention article this very moment - I'll put something up as a placeholder though).
Xdamrtalk 16:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you provide me with the OCR scans as well? I'd like to proofread the text, and upload the scans to Commons as a single djvu file. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:09:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think the easiest thing is if I upload it and let anyone interested grab a copy. You can find it (for the time being at least) at http://www.btinternet.com/~damorrison/SAA1909.tif
Xdamrtalk 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note, while adding some table formatting, I noticed a few words were missing.[1] John Vandenberg 01:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well spotted. Taking a quick look through these tables I found that s.34 also omitted the 'For the' prefixes. Some sections have this prefix, while others (eg. s.33) do not. My error in leaving it out, but I think that's it fixed now. --Xdamrtalk 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, though I'll work on getting it November's featured slot. There are many formatting errors; for example, the use of full capitalization instead of Small-caps, lack of indentation, superfluous blank lines, merging headings with numbering, incorrect use of capitalized bold where the source uses sentence-case italics, et cetera. I haven't found any obvious errors in the text itself, though I'll compare it with other sources to make sure. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:57:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You are of course aware that this text was derived from a book, not from a copy of the Act itself. I have considerable professional experience with UK legislation and I can tell you that the format adopted by that book is not 'standard' to the last detail (though it is of course accurate in terms of broad presentation). In point of fact I think that an accurate visual presentation (setting textual accuracy aside) is almost an impossibility within the confines of wiki syntax etc. But it's good to hear that the text seems to be in pretty good order, at least that's something.
Xdamrtalk 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
See British North America Act, 1867 for an attempt to better recreate the visual presentation of UK/Commonwealth acts. --T. Mazzei 14:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, that's good. I'll give that format a try here and see how it turns out. Thanks for that. --Xdamrtalk 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, interesting and well-formatted. Quadell 23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some 6 months after FT nomination and 12 months after the text was first added, all outstanding issues have finally been (I think) taken care of. The text seems to be correct in all respects and the formatting issues have now been taken care of. Any other issues?

Xdamrtalk 22:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

w:1908 National Convention doesnt exist, and currently there is no link to the rest of our UK legislation. I think we want either the template {{British legislation lists}} prominently displayed, List of Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom Parliament, 1900-1919 linked somewhere in the header, or a typical "author" value with a Author page that contains more information. John Vandenberg 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and added that link in the header. Unless someone particular is know to have composed this bill there should not be an author listed.--BirgitteSB 14:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support--Lookatthis 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Promoted to front page. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

United States patent number:X1[edit]

This is the first US patent and the same inventor obtained the first Canadian patent, for the same invention. John Vandenberg 12:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It was not the first Canadian patent. That was granted to G. Riley on 1842-07-06 for "An improved method of brewing ale, beer, porter and other malt liquors." (A decent topic for a beginning!) Earlier patents in the separate colonies began with Levi Rice's patent of a "machine for manufacturing lathes, shingles, clapboards" in Nova Scotia in 1834, J. C. Clark's "water wheel" in New Brunswick in 1835. Source: Lovell's Canadian Dominion Directory for 1871. Eclecticology 07:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    Stop the press: Wikipedia is wrong. John Vandenberg 08:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
How many people have proofread this? I couldn't make out the image well enough myself.--BirgitteSB 17:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The preview is illegible, but the full image is high-res. Check out the direct image at [2] to proofread. Quadell 23:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose, just not all that interesting, in my opinion. Quadell 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Wikisource was made for text like this(I think), old plays, old Poetry, old books, Speeches, Constitutions, Acts, Etc. making United States patent number:X1 a Featured text would be a great way to show off Wikisource what it is and get more users to add more useful works--Lookatthis 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree this sort of thing does set Wikisource apart from other online libraries. However when I view the page the footer is not in the correct position instead being to the right of the image. Suicidalhamster 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional support, based on criteria #C2, as I see it there are very miniscule typos in our text when compared to the original image, considering that there are smudges in it. A few are below: (John, please verify as I may be wrong)
  • There are various words with two "ss" where the first looks like an "f". Can we confirm whether the wording was just the author's handwriting (writing style of the time) or a typo? Is there a link to the text transcribed online by the U.S. Patent Office?
  • When numbering the patented process, the patent always includes a period after each number, and the numbering for the second process does not include an n, it should read 2d.

Don't have much time now, will try to proofread later. Once proofread, I will fully support. This is an important historical document. - Mtmelendez 12:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, we hold the only transcription of this.[3][4][5]
I dont mind if the "s" are changed to ſ, and agree that "2d." is a better representation of the original, but we could go even better with "2d.", pushing the period under the d, and italicising the d. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry for the lateness, but I've proofread it, and would recommend the following (miniscule) edits:

  1. The numbering for the second process does not include an n, it should read 2d. (as above)
  2. On the Attorney General's note, 31st should be 31st. And the signing off should have a period at the end. (Attorney General for the United States.)

In an effort to streamline this nomination, I'm making the edits, but feel free to revert and discuss here. In any case, I've added myself as a proofreader of the document, to answer the concerns above.

After these edits, I support the work as is: it's an accurate copy of the original, and an important historical document. However, some recommendations (by John and me) might make our edition even more exact to the original document. Further discussion would help us determine whether the following edits are needed:

  1. Changing the numbering from "1st." to "1st."
  2. Changing the second "s" to ſ in words where the author used it, such as disſolving, disſolution, asſigns, etc.
  3. Adding the large bracket on the Attorney General's note.

I understand that these additions might hinder copying to simple text format, but we could make a subpage without these edits. Thoughts? - Mtmelendez 17:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've made most of these changes. I havent added the large bracket, as I expect it will look terrible when viewed at various window sizes if the bracket is sized proportional to the height of the text block. I've noticed a textual error we have both ignored; "entitled" was actually "wikt:entituled" in the original. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice catch. I think the text is ready now. - Mtmelendez 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


ACLU v. NSA Opinion[edit]

This text was proposed in 2006, but according to the calculations used at the time it didnt have sufficient support to be promoted.

The issues raised last time have mostly been resolved, it has had numerous proof readers, is still current news with an appeal turned down in February 2008 (see w:ACLU v. NSA and w:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy for more general information).

We still have not had a judicial opinion featured yet; while they are not bed time stories, they are an important class of work being digitised on Wikisource and this is a good example that will be of interest to readers. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support I made some comments on the text's talk page that may serve to tighten up the scholarship one more time. I would do it myself but I'm not sure the changes I suggest are actually consistent with the style elements of Wikisource. At a point in the future when the Sixth Circuit's published opinion on this case is brought into Wikisource pages, then an ACLU v. NSA pre-page can be implemented that offers subsequent links to both Wikisource texts.Jmcneill2 05:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm impressed by the context links. Theophobic 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, truly a masterpiece wrought by the hands of gods. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Confucianism 00:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent candidate. I've added some proofreading nits and comments. Michael D. Sullivan 01:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, sure. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support.Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Is the original file uploaded to Commons or here? I don't see it. - Mtmelendez 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. —Giggy 04:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PROMOTED. - Mtmelendez 15:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


The Wind in the Willows[edit]

The Wind in the Willows is a classic of children's literature, focusing on three animal characters in a bucolic version of England. The book is notable for its mixture of mysticism, adventure, morality and camaraderie. It can also be viewed as a commentary on class dynamics in British society.— Excerpted from The Wind in the Willows on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.'

Complete? Check. Correctly formatted? Check. Proofread by multiple editors? Check. Public domain? Check, in both England and the U.S. A rollicking good read? Check and check again!

  • Support as nom. Quadell 23:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Cowardly Lion 00:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support --Lookatthis 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: What was this proofread against, actually? Any hard copy (i.e., images) or just Gutenberg's version?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • For me, only the Gutenberg version, as I was unable to find a hardcopy online. I see that this was not proofed by Distributed Proofreaders (whom I trust), but only by the Gutenberg volunteer who scanned it in. That's unfortunate. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have added LibriVox audio files to the chapters. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it help if I scanned the pages from my copy of the book? Actually I have two copies of the book, one with illustrations by Arthur Rackham and one with illustrations by E. H. Shepard, but unfortunately neither author has been dead 70 years yet, so I'd have to cover up the illustrations from the scans anyway. Angr/Talk 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded two DJVU files from archive.org: original 1908 and 1913 illustrated edition. Personally, I would prefer to see the 1908 edition transcribed, so we can say with assurance that our edition is the original. The 1913 illustrations could be added to the 1908 text, if they are clearly marked as from a later edition. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, w:Image:Wind in the willows.jpg says it is the first edition (1908), so it may be suitable to be moved to commons, but if that is a UK edition, it may be copyright still. It is a nice image; does anyone care enough to work out the copyright? my head hurts. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the entire text has been validated at Index:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, validated, looks great. —Giggy 10:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent job by all involved. RlevseTalk 13:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Early Settlers Along the Mississippi[edit]

The following discussion is closed: featured
This one of the articles that was distributed along with w:Birds of America. It is fully proofread and I don't believe there are other problems with the text. It is on the heavy-handed side with the links, which is something I have been mulling over. But we seem a bit hard up right now for a text and maybe having it on the main page will generate some feedback on the links. I think it is interesting perspective of when Missouri was the West and land became yours if you could survive on it a few years.--BirgitteSB 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; text moved to Index:Southern Life in Southern Literature.djvu John Vandenberg (chat) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, with the only issue being the wiki links. I prefer that they be rare in the text. I think that most if not all of these could be removed. But that is a minor stylistic issue that can be decided later in a different forum if other users agree. It need not stop this article from being promoted to feature text. FloNight 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support and I quite like the curent use of wikilinks. —Giggy 12:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Still one more page to be validated: Page:Southern_Life_in_Southern_Literature.djvu/37 (not directed at anyone specifically, but it is really handy that you're the last to comment Giggy ;-) --John Vandenberg (chat) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. :-) —Giggy 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Index:GeorgeTCoker.djvu[edit]

This is the first work of its kind, a collection of military biographical documents collected into a djvu file. These 21 separate documents, comprising 23 separate pages, have been validated by 3 different users and are all PD USGov. RlevseTalk 10:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support in some shape or form. There are some interesting works in here. Combat Area Casualties Returned Alive File - G. T. Coker is especially interesting to me. I would be happy if we featured a single item from this collection, or if we featured the bundle. As Coker is alive, I would like to know if he minds these works being on the front page of our tiny website, as a courtesy. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
He's okay with it I'm sure. He knows about the en.wiki article and is okay with that. RlevseTalk 11:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I strongly think that where there is a signature it should be placed into the text, instead of /s/NAME. diego_pmc 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, give me a few days to work on this. RlevseTalk 09:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • DONE, added images of actual written sigs to all pages with a sig and used imagemap syntax to make them clickable to their en.wiki article for the two people that have one. Cropped images of sigs are on Commons with links to their original file. RlevseTalk 17:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • They're not exactly the best extracted images ever. How many are they? If there's not too many of them I could try to get some clean images for you. diego_pmc 18:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, I've cleaned them up. BTW, is there no wy to remove that blue circle with the exclamation mark? If not, I'd rather removed the imagemap tags... diego_pmc 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There are 5 sigs in total. I fixed issues you found on 8 & 22. There's also the Anderson image on page 21, can you fix that too please? I'm not good at improving images. The blue icon came with the imagemap, but without imagemap, we can't link back to enwiki. Depends on what people want. RlevseTalk 20:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the last one. About imagemap, I know that without it you can't link to wp:en, but I really find that blue mark disturbing. diego_pmc 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for helping. RlevseTalk 10:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, unique and very well-done documentation that helped provide key evidence in a disputed article on a true hero. Wonderful use of Wikisource! Definitely feature material. Dreadstar 13:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, a set of fine, unique, and well-done documents for wikisource. We need more in this area.Sumoeagle179 13:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support; good work has been done here. —Giggy 00:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unique first-time of kind papers on wikisource, public domain, 23 documents. It's great!JoJo (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the moment. I have put some effort into these pages, and think that a fairly nice long blurb can be constructed around the Freedom of Information Act request and reply. There are two main problems left with Information Releasable Under The Freedom Of Information Act - G. T. Coker :
    1. there are lots of terms on this page which have not been explained.
    2. it lists 10 medals which were not included in the DJVU, and we dont have a transcript of. The obvious question is: why were they not included in the FOIA reply? And, can we obtain transcripts of the other awards, as readers are going to be looking at this for a month, so we want this collection to be as complete as possible.
    John Vandenberg (chat) 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The ten medals don't have transcripts as they are too minor and/or awarded automatically if certain criterion are met, such as the Vietnam ribbons are simply for serving in the area, the NDSM for being on active duty during a crisis, the POW Medal for being a POW, etc. These sorts of medals are simply entered into a record and awarded, no transcript would have ever been created. What terms do you want explained? RlevseTalk 21:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info regarding the awards; terms like PERSUPPDET LANTFLT and CVN 68 USS NIMITZ all need explanations. If you and others can commit to working on these a little over the next week I'll withdraw my oppose and get on with writing up the blurb. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've just added gobs of wikilinks, including the Nimitz, it's an aircraft carrier. PERSUPPDET LANT FLT means "Personnel Support Detachment Atlantic Fleet". If you want me to explain this in the article, pls show proper formatting. I can have all these terms expanded within 1-2 days. RlevseTalk 02:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You could either use footnotes(I have done PERSUPPDET LANT FLT as an example), or links to Wikipedia articles; is "Personnel Support Detachment Atlantic Fleet" worthy of a stub on Wikipedia? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No way is it stub worthy. RlevseTalk 10:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the blurb I propose for {{Featured text}}. Feel free to adjust. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to research and pay tribute to military veterans, on July 23 2007 John E. Anderson of veterantributes.org submitted a SF 180 - Request Pertaining To Military Records form to the United States National Personnel Records Center for information about the highly–decorated Vietnam-War era Prisoner of War George Thomas Coker under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). The reply on August 20, 2007 was accompanied by the following documents:
(Read on..., or see all or about featured texts.)

I added "the highly–decorated". If that's not okay, feel free to remove it. For the rest, looks good, you have more experience at this that I do. RlevseTalk 10:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. I've added the website name. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured! John Vandenberg (chat) 09:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not featured[edit]

The Religion of God[edit]

The Religion of God is considered as a very important book of Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on spiritualism. Originally this book was written in urdu, however, translated by International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam in many languages including English, French, Hindi, Sindhi, Arabic etc. In this book Gohar Shahi revealed the path to attain Divine Love of God. I have checked in all the aspects and in my view this can be one of the Featured texts on wikisource.--Iamsaa 05:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont see any evidence that this work is covered by the {{GFDL}} and the Wikipedia artice about the translator (International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam) has just recently been deleted at w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam. The deleted article did not mention "Religion of God".
This work was last discussed at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/09#The_Religion_of_God_and_Riaz_Ahmed_Gohar_Shahi, where it was deleted. I didn't notice this when I patrolled it being created.
Without clear evidence of being GFDL, it can not be featured. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
This books is a GFDL and it's been taged on its page as well. Moreover, International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam, which was founded by His Holiness Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, has given permission for all material of ASI to be used however, attribution to the author is a condition. I think this book is one of the most important work of Gohar Shahi and has been translated into many languages. I think it should be considered as one of the featured text on Wikisource.--Iamsaa 10:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Being tagged as GFDL is not sufficient. We need the copyright holder to provide the Wikimedia Foundation with a clear statement that the work has been released under the terms of the GFDL. Email permissions@wikimedia.org to begin this discussion. Also, we need proof that the original work was published in urdu in print. Does it have an ISBN? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me tell you that it is not yet popular in Pakistan to secure an ISBN, however, here you can see the proof of this books, moreover, you can also see here another evidence that this book was printed. Further, if you want I can arrange an email from International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam to be sent to you regarding GFDL.--Iamsaa 10:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Good, now we are getting somewhere. this says "The first edition of the book was published in January 2000 in the United States with the joint cooperation of RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland." Do you know what language that edition was written in ? Could you find out how many copies were printed? The copyright of the original is owned by the author, and it is only the author (or their estate) who can grant the work under free license. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The name of this book is Deen-e-Illahi (in English The Religion of God), orignally it was printed in Urdu and the quantity of the book when printed for the first time was 50,000. The RAGS International, London, the American Sufi Institute, and the All-Faith Spiritual Movement Northern Ireland are the sub-branches of International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam for missionary activities abroad. International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam holds the rights for this book, which can be viewed here. I hope now you may consider this book as a feature text. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to ask.--Iamsaa 05:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. Clearly, this is a matter for copyright discussion, as the edition linked to by the uploader has:

First Edition January 2000

All rights reserved.

in it. Therefore, moving it there. Jude (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC) (see WS:COPYVIO:#The Religion of God)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland[edit]

A very popular book, meeting (and exceeding?) the style guidelines. The thing I haven't checked is the accuracy - I don't have the book, but it seems it was proofread. diego_pmc 08:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This work has audio and illustrations. Also, there are many sets of pagescans on archive.org if someone wants to proofread it or migrate the text onto the pagescans. Do we know which edition we currently have? Do we know which edition the illustrations come from? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Are the illustrations actually by Carroll? For some reason I always thought they were by John Tenniel - but I could be mistaken, between Tenniel and Gustav Dore though, I think entire libraries could be filled. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Percival Lowell 22:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems the 1897 edition was used to proofread the text.[1] He also says that his copy used American style quoting, but he later changed that to British. Now, honestly I can't stand Americna style quoting, but since it's like that in the original, I think it's better we leave it that way. diego_pmc 06:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Surely we should get it to conform to a British edition published under Carroll's own scrutiny, because he was an incredibly meticulous proofreader.--Poetlister 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've listened to some random parts of the recordings and they don't fit perfectly with the text, in all places (only minor differences, but still). For example in chapter two, near the beginning the text says "I’m sure I sha’n’t be able!", and the recording says "I’m sure I sha’n’t be able to!". It's a pity though, the text is very pleasant to look at, very eye-catching, the book is very popular and most find it pleasant too, but unfortunately there still are a few problems. diego_pmc 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The to is not in either edition I checked (Children's Edition 1927 (1974 reprint); the 1965 Collected Works ed. Roger Lancelyn Green).--Poetlister 22:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not promoted. The work has only been proofread by one user User:Fluggo (unless the {{textinfo}} template has not been updated as of late), and is therefore ineligible for featuring at this time. Jude (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)