Wikisource:Featured text candidates
Information
[edit]Nominating a text
[edit]- 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.
- Please ensure that "download option" from the sidebar produces a full work
- Note the nomination on the talk page by adding the template {{featured text candidate}}.
- 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
- Add a comment explaining why the nomination failed.
- Archive it.
- 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
- Add a comment noting the selection.
- Archive it.
- Add the work to {{Featured text}} (inside the respective month) and {{featured schedule}}.
- Place {{featured}} on top of the work's main page {{header}} template.
- Place {{featured talk|November 2026}} at the top of the work's main talk page (changing the numbers to the appropriate date if not next month).
- Protect all the work's main namespace pages.
- Indicate the work's featured status on its associated data item at Wikidata.
Nominations
[edit]For older nominations, see the archives.
A classic work, and a play. Featuring a play might encourage people to add more plays.— FPTI (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Support SnowyCinema (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)- Mostly Support. I'm not a fan of {{advertisements}} and how it makes it look like the text actually contained that "advertisement" word like that (sc, not the usual added-green), but it's not a hill I'd die on. — Alien 3
3 3 21:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC) - Support I've been through many pages, and found only a few minor errors, all of which I corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
How about setting this for December? The play was first produced on 27 Dec 1904, and we haven't changed Dec work in 2 years. — Alien 3
3 3 09:16, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Alien333: Though I admittedly take some pride in Little Elephant's Christmas being in featured, sure. Let's get some diversity going. SnowyCinema (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose it'll be for next year. Ideas for a blurb? — Alien 3
3 3 09:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose it'll be for next year. Ideas for a blurb? — Alien 3
I looked this up today and was happy to see it was fully validated. It's classic work of detective fiction, considered one of the (if not the) best book by Agatha Christie, the best-selling fiction writer of all time. It is, as I say, fully validated and well-proofread. Cremastra (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Did you check any pages for errors, or simply note that it was validated? We have found validated works in the past with high error rates, transclusion errors, mixed straight and curly quotes, and the like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Quote marks are consistently straight; I'll do a deeper check tomorrow. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Cremastra (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Quote marks are consistently straight; I'll do a deeper check tomorrow. Cremastra (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Some pages are done entirely with straight quotes (e.g., p. 64), but others entirely with curly quotes (e.g., p. 52). It needs to be all one or the other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)- Support as quotes have been sorted out. A spot check revealed nothing else that could stop it being featured. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I've straightened out the 60 pages that were using curly quotes, and corrected a few errors on the way. — Alien 3
3 3 10:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
With regards to esteemed members. I would like to propose this work for FT. This work contains the original papers constituting Bose's contribution towards the invention of the radio (1, 2 and 3 may be seen for details). One of the components of this research had led to this patent: US Patent 755,840 A (Bose's Wireless Detector). The work also contains the author's papers on biophysics, including the crescograph. Hrishikes (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- But what makes this collection of assorted papers worth featuring on the Main page? A featured text is considered "the best of what Wikisource has to offer", so what makes this the best we have? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support - interesting and complex work with lots of images. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support - I think a featured work on scientific topics with well formatted tables, equations and illustrations would make for a good featured topic item. IanVG (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
This is an account written by John C. Cremony, an American soldier who wrote the first dictionary of the Apache language. Although he spoke Apache and personally knew the Apache Chiefs Mangas Coloradas and Cochise, the title of his book is today considered an exaggeration, and modern historians "have come to deem many of Cremony's accounts of his Indian campaigns extravagant or embellished." (per Wikipedia) The Arizona Evening Star compared his veracity to that of Baron Munchhausen. Nevertheless, his book had a lasting influence on how the US viewed the Apaches. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Support SnowyCinema (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support interesting (though the blurb should mention inacurracies, probably), found no problems on spot check. — Alien 3
3 3 21:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Recently validated by Beeswaxcandle. A very interesting collection of short alternate history sketches—hard to find anything like it—so I think it would be interesting to feature. SnowyCinema (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
- Support—Nice, looks good to me from a spot check; nothing I can find to reproach. — Alien 3
3 3 21:21, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
1929, proofread by Qq1122qq. It's a beautiful, deeply unique, futuristic work for its era, and I think it's deserving of featuring. SnowyCinema (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Support as I couldn't find any errors other than the one on page 84, which I fixed. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment looks mostly good to me, except for the image captions at the bottom. Eg "THE FOUR STAGES" at Page:The Metropolis of Tomorrow.pdf/84. These don't look like they should be {{l}}? @Qq1122qq what do you think of that?
recently validated in the monthly challenge. it's a beautiful book. ltbdl (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey @Ltbdl If it helps, I had requested an image upgrade from Sp1nd01 for Bambi a couple of weeks back, and the new images are now in (they also shouldn't balloon now either). Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- The images on the title page are still oversized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed the title-page image. From spot-checking, I think it was the only one oversized. That's a Support from me. — Alien 3
3 3 09:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I fixed the title-page image. From spot-checking, I think it was the only one oversized. That's a
- The images on the title page are still oversized. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey @Ltbdl If it helps, I had requested an image upgrade from Sp1nd01 for Bambi a couple of weeks back, and the new images are now in (they also shouldn't balloon now either). Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I don't like that the word "A" is capitalized in the title, but other than that, Support. Most people probably don't even know that the Disney movie was based on this. SnowyCinema (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Support Now that the images are corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I don't think the inside cover illustrations should be transcluded. Nosferattus (talk) 05:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that. I think the whole work's content should be respected. In fact, when I looked into it, I discovered that the image on the cover is not transcluded, and said to be "not needing to be proofread". My understanding is that for covers, it's understood to be optional to proofread if it has an image. But I personally think these images should always be included. They, especially the cover image, are useful as images.
- But setting my own personal disagreements about the inside cover illustrations aside, I'll just speak to consensus and say that editors (and I think policies) aren't in full agreement about this, and these illustrations are understood to be (against my opinion that they should be required) on a sort of "optional" basis, so I don't think this is a reason not to feature it. Some people have put the parts of the front matter they consider to be worse-looking in a subpage called "/Front matter" (a practice which I disagree with as I hope for the work to be presented as the author/publisher intended, but am posing it as an option because there's consensus against my own sentiments that this is an okay compromise). SnowyCinema (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- @SnowyCinema: I actually don't mind having outside covers included, but I wouldn't consider inside covers (or blank pages) to be worth transcluding in most cases. There is a whole continuum of different treatments of inside covers from blank to marbled to decorated to illustrated. For example, the Wizard of Oz books were known for having beautiful inside cover illustrations. In this case, I would put the inside cover treatment somewhere between 'decoration' and 'illustration'. It doesn't add much to the transcluded book, in my opinion, but we can agree to disagree on that. I'm willing to support the book with the inside cover illustrations included, but only if they are properly paginated. Having a double-page illustration squished into one page doesn't work well with any of the export formats. It should be split into two pages so that it displays properly in an ebook reader, with the left and right illustrations stretching across the left and right pages (rather than shrunk down to a tiny picture on 1 page). Finally, I think it's an awkward thing to begin the book with. If you're going to include the inside cover illustrations, you should have the cover as well. Nosferattus (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
- Support I checked some pages and found no problems. The images also look good to me, although I will note for future reference that the resolution of the images we have is larger than the resolution of the original scan. Duckmather (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)
proofread and validated. a classic text in the field of law; and for a legal book, is highly readable. it also contains real and surprisingly suspenseful examples of cross-examination. ltbdl (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Did you check any pages for errors, or simply note that it was validated? We have found validated works in the past with high error rates, transclusion errors, mixed straight and curly quotes, and the like. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- in my spot check, i found no errors. ltbdl (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- In a quick look, I found that the chapter titles are sometimes bold and sometimes not. The style needs to be consistent throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- in my spot check, i found no errors. ltbdl (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I found quite a few errors: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=all&start=&tagfilter=&target=BethNaught&dir=prev&offset=20251224111302&limit=10
- Also, there's another formatting inconsistency where some pages use normal double newlines for paragraphs, and others use <br> (example). BethNaught (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This work is underlinked. There are a lot of notable historical figures mentioned in the work and none of them are linked to author pages. Duckmather (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Such linking can be useful, but it is not a requirement. Out linking guidance permits such linking, and has guidelines against overlinking, but explicitly states that there is no problem with underlinking inside a text, and that it is normal for the body to contain no links at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The novel Steppenwolf is the best-known work by Swiss poet and Nobel Prize winner in Literature Hermann Hesse. It was wildly popular when first published and has maintained a devoted following, although the author believes this came largely through misinterpretation of the novel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I spot checked a few pages and noticed that the linking style for this work was somewhat inconsistent; I've changed some links (namely the names of authors or notable works) to point locally to wikisource instead of to wikipedia. This should be fixed before featuring. I didn't see any typos though, other than this one. Duckmather (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
One of T. S. Eliot's most famous poems, and (per the WP article): "widely regarded as one of the most important English-language poems of the 20th century and a central work of modernist poetry." This edition contains not only the poem, but multiple end notes prepared by the author to explain the literary references. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
Simple and illustrated book by respected Czech writer Karel Čapek and his brother Josef Čapek. We don't feature many non-fiction works, much less whimsical tongue-in-cheek works with cartoon illustrations that are for adults. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
This influential work of supernatural horror and weird fiction continues to be one of our most-viewed texts, with more than 100 views per day on most days. References to it in the first season of the critically-acclaimed first season of True Detective brought it to the attention of modern audiences. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
- Support. -- Beardo (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
Hi, Notable work with its own article, the first novel to feature Miss Marple. Yann (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Some chapters have been transcribed entirely with curly quotes, but others with straight quotes, so it does not meet the requirements for being featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: There were a few straight quotes left here and there. All fixed now. Yann (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- And in at least one case, you change a straight ' that was part of italics to a curly, breaking the formatting. I fixed one, but wonder if there are other cases not showing on the error list. -- Beardo (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- They are not all fixed. I checked three chapters randomly, and two of those chapters still had straight quotes in them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- I will look at it again. I am not sure about the chapter titles formatting. Different chapters use different formatting. Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- The formatting should be uniform. If that is also an issue, then it also needs to be addressed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- OMG! I found again some quotes missing or wrong. Formatting is also fixed. Yann (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
- The formatting should be uniform. If that is also an issue, then it also needs to be addressed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
- I will look at it again. I am not sure about the chapter titles formatting. Different chapters use different formatting. Yann (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: There were a few straight quotes left here and there. All fixed now. Yann (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, Can this be promoted now? Yann (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- There have been no supporting votes. Typically, a work does not get featured until it has been supported. Also, the FT process can take a year or more because of the lack of participation. You can see that there are many works listed prior to this one that have yet to be actioned, including several that already have supporting votes. Further, the entire FT process goes inactive often. No new FT has been promoted since August of last year. This is why there is a discussion in the Scriptorium to replace FT with a new process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: OK, but do you still oppose it? Is there anything to be down to meet the FT quality? Yann (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- FT is not a simple "quality" issue. It doesn't work the way that Wikipedia Featured Article does. A FT on Wikisource is selected to be featured on the Main Page in a specific month. It isn't a status change for the text, but a full process of loading it into the coming month's templates for featuring on the Main Page. And before that happens, it needs to be supported. Works with no support aren't placed on the Main Page. There are also twelve works ahead of this one in consideration, and five of those have had no supporting votes yet, despite having been listed since the end of last year for the oldest one. FT has never been a speedy process, so please have patience. It may be a year or more before an admin makes a new selection, but before that happens, the work needs to receive supporting votes. I don't know whether I still oppose this work because I haven't had the time to go back and evaluate it again. If I check this again, and find that it's still not ready, then that will be the last time I check it. I've already looked at this work twice since it was nominated, and both times it wasn't ready yet. Works ought to be ready before they are nominated. That's the first criterion listed for FT nominations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should have two Christies as FTs, and suggest that Roger Ackroyd should be added first. Leave this pending and in a few years, we can swap it in. -- Beardo (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fine to have Roger Ackroyd first, but I don't see why we could not have 2 FT works by A. Christie. And I think that the work displayed on the Main Page should be changed at least every month. On the French WS, we have a new work on the Main Page every week. Now, if the FT project is dead, let's bury it once and for all, and have something alive on the Main Page. Yann (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that we should have two Christies as FTs, and suggest that Roger Ackroyd should be added first. Leave this pending and in a few years, we can swap it in. -- Beardo (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
- FT is not a simple "quality" issue. It doesn't work the way that Wikipedia Featured Article does. A FT on Wikisource is selected to be featured on the Main Page in a specific month. It isn't a status change for the text, but a full process of loading it into the coming month's templates for featuring on the Main Page. And before that happens, it needs to be supported. Works with no support aren't placed on the Main Page. There are also twelve works ahead of this one in consideration, and five of those have had no supporting votes yet, despite having been listed since the end of last year for the oldest one. FT has never been a speedy process, so please have patience. It may be a year or more before an admin makes a new selection, but before that happens, the work needs to receive supporting votes. I don't know whether I still oppose this work because I haven't had the time to go back and evaluate it again. If I check this again, and find that it's still not ready, then that will be the last time I check it. I've already looked at this work twice since it was nominated, and both times it wasn't ready yet. Works ought to be ready before they are nominated. That's the first criterion listed for FT nominations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: OK, but do you still oppose it? Is there anything to be down to meet the FT quality? Yann (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- There have been no supporting votes. Typically, a work does not get featured until it has been supported. Also, the FT process can take a year or more because of the lack of participation. You can see that there are many works listed prior to this one that have yet to be actioned, including several that already have supporting votes. Further, the entire FT process goes inactive often. No new FT has been promoted since August of last year. This is why there is a discussion in the Scriptorium to replace FT with a new process. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)