Talk:Picturesque New Zealand
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | 1913 |
| Source: | Low quality scans: http://www.archive.org/details/picturesquenewz00goodgoog
High quality scans: http://www.archive.org/details/picturesquenewze00gooduoft |
| Level of progress: | Incomplete |
Superior Scans[edit]
The current scan (File:Picturesque New Zealand.djvu) are not very good (Google scans rarely are). A better scan is available at File:Picturesque New Zealand, 1913.djvu. Even if the text isn't moved across as I think it should be given that the Google scan completely omits some pages (e.g. the preface), the images should certainly come from the higher quality scan. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 04:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I moved the first few pages. cygnis insignis 05:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved from index talk:
What is the problem? No indication of the issue. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- If the problem is that it is missing a couple of pages, how about this one http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n453/mode/2up ? Or we can just get the extra pages and have them uploaded separately, and just transclude the text into place. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Work started on the new scan, I compared it yesterday when grabbing a better jpeg, so I started directing users there. I thought it prudent because other problems may emerge with this, and, even though some was done already, I trust the source of the new scan. cygnis insignis 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- While we are doing all the moves, in reflection, we would have been better to cull one an early page from the new version, and we wouldn't have had to do all this moving. We could have moved those few pages after where the scans were omitted.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cropping a page would create another offset, not helpful to proofer's getting jpegs from the online scan. It is a pain, but what others started is probably best for all concerned. The solution is to avoid this situation by poking around the scan and the net, IA.org usually reveals a good scan and the American libraries often have careful and complete versions. The latter's motivation is different to google's, they care about alignment, focus, and other factors that produce crisp illustrations and near perfect ocr. I lost interest in this text after reading a bit, but acted when the new index was being worked on - this made a very confusing situation for newer users. Perhaps the POTM should revert to this work, I didn't ask the contributor if they wanted that othr index checked. cygnis insignis 03:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I found this situation very confusing, and I notice that one editor that contributed a lot to the first version and whose contributions were not moved, has not contributed to this one. Perhaps contributors should be notified when this type of problem occurs so they know what is going on. From a text point of view, having proofread many pages in both versions of the scans, one is not better than the other. Another editor (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The page history should have been retained for this reason, but the situation here is different to wikipedia; we have to be brutal when more confusion might emerge. If the index was not POTM I would not blink at minor edits being deleted, but I carefully moved each page to the new index so the multiple users knew what was going on. Once users started on the second index there was no choice but to go with it; before then I was happy to ignore the problem, I didn't think this book was worth the effort. As others have pointed out, checking that all is well with a scan is best before making it POTM. We want the better scan, in principle, to stop the same situation emerging in slow motion. Someone not contributing two days later is not evidence of anything, but I agree that the situation is confusing. Avoiding the problem is obviously better, and deleting contribs upsets and confuses people, all involved should be reminded that preliminary checks save everyone a lot of trouble. cygnis insignis 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I would reflect that maybe a case of choosing your (lesser) evils. Missing pages in one version can be an issue, though there are a number of ways to address such, and in this case a (bold?) decision was made and went with the flow. With regard to contributions, the only pages that were not moved were the problematic and blank pages (held as location markers & easier to recreate) and some of the early preface and ToC. The maximum number of pages to be moved was done. Apologies to any who had other pages removed. The selection of older works can be a little difficult for identifying missing pages where there are so many holes in numbering due to inserted images. We try our best. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- The page history should have been retained for this reason, but the situation here is different to wikipedia; we have to be brutal when more confusion might emerge. If the index was not POTM I would not blink at minor edits being deleted, but I carefully moved each page to the new index so the multiple users knew what was going on. Once users started on the second index there was no choice but to go with it; before then I was happy to ignore the problem, I didn't think this book was worth the effort. As others have pointed out, checking that all is well with a scan is best before making it POTM. We want the better scan, in principle, to stop the same situation emerging in slow motion. Someone not contributing two days later is not evidence of anything, but I agree that the situation is confusing. Avoiding the problem is obviously better, and deleting contribs upsets and confuses people, all involved should be reminded that preliminary checks save everyone a lot of trouble. cygnis insignis 14:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I found this situation very confusing, and I notice that one editor that contributed a lot to the first version and whose contributions were not moved, has not contributed to this one. Perhaps contributors should be notified when this type of problem occurs so they know what is going on. From a text point of view, having proofread many pages in both versions of the scans, one is not better than the other. Another editor (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Cropping a page would create another offset, not helpful to proofer's getting jpegs from the online scan. It is a pain, but what others started is probably best for all concerned. The solution is to avoid this situation by poking around the scan and the net, IA.org usually reveals a good scan and the American libraries often have careful and complete versions. The latter's motivation is different to google's, they care about alignment, focus, and other factors that produce crisp illustrations and near perfect ocr. I lost interest in this text after reading a bit, but acted when the new index was being worked on - this made a very confusing situation for newer users. Perhaps the POTM should revert to this work, I didn't ask the contributor if they wanted that othr index checked. cygnis insignis 03:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- While we are doing all the moves, in reflection, we would have been better to cull one an early page from the new version, and we wouldn't have had to do all this moving. We could have moved those few pages after where the scans were omitted.<shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- Work started on the new scan, I compared it yesterday when grabbing a better jpeg, so I started directing users there. I thought it prudent because other problems may emerge with this, and, even though some was done already, I trust the source of the new scan. cygnis insignis 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Maps ???[edit]
This version has maps missing on the inside flaps! :( Captain Nemo (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- We can just grab them from other versions and insert as necessary, not perfect, though it works. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Picturesque New Zealand, South Island map.jpg & File:Picturesque New Zealand, North Island map.jpg
- I found it very helpful to me (since I know almost nothing about New Zealand other than what I have gained in reading these pages) was to add a few strategic wikilinks to articles that included maps so that I could orient myself. I found reading this book a wonderful, enlightening introduction to New Zealand. Another editor (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Do have your input at Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month about what else may take your fancy going forward. There is also Wikisource:Requested texts that may have things of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Added the maps at the end of the index. feydey (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- I found it very helpful to me (since I know almost nothing about New Zealand other than what I have gained in reading these pages) was to add a few strategic wikilinks to articles that included maps so that I could orient myself. I found reading this book a wonderful, enlightening introduction to New Zealand. Another editor (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- File:Picturesque New Zealand, South Island map.jpg & File:Picturesque New Zealand, North Island map.jpg
Double spread images[edit]
The double page image spreads seem less than enchanting in the chosen volume, presumably due to the binding gutter. We may be wise to look at the other volumes for alternatives
- http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n61/mode/2up
- http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n223/mode/2up
- http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n235/mode/2up
- http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n319/mode/2up
- http://www.archive.org/stream/cu31924028623944#page/n333/mode/2up