Wikisource:Featured text candidates
| ← Featured texts | Featured texts (candidates) | archives (current) → |
| 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. |
Contents
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 2018}}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.
The Art of Bookbinding[edit]
It's been a very long time since we featured a work on manufacture or of practical value. This volume not only describes the traditional practices but also includes many fine illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Would be nice to have a uniform formatting of captions for pictures.— Mpaa (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Very interesting book, and beautiful illustrations! --Dick Bos (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would also support this if we made an effort to go back and make it render properly in mobile. As-is, the TOC renders poorly (it also does on desktop in Layout 2); there's also issues with (for example) explicit widths on the rule in the front matter, and some tables and up left aligned instead of centered. I also agree with Mpaa about having consistent image formatting, though I'd like to add that while some of the images do have alt-text, a number of them don't -- which should also be addressed for potential readers who are using assistive technology (eg. screen readers). Otherwise this work is pretty interesting, the images are high quality, and the nomination has been hanging around forever -- with a little TLC I think it would be a good and representative work. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- If you believe that mobile-rendering should become a criterion for Featured Texts, then you should start that conversation in the Scriptorium. Currently, mobile-rendering is not a FT criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Support
Comment- The same or similar problems exist for Layout 2 on desktop. There is already a Scriptorium discussion (several actually) about responsive and mobile rendering. Not specific to FT, but in general. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Layout 2 isn't applied to this work anywhere that I can see, so that issue isn't relevant here.
- The same or similar problems exist for Layout 2 on desktop. There is already a Scriptorium discussion (several actually) about responsive and mobile rendering. Not specific to FT, but in general. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- We judge works for FT by established criteria. If you believe we should start applying additional criteria, then that discussion should happen first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Layout 2 is my default. If you don't enforce a layout, then I feel it is my right to use whichever one I prefer, and I prefer Layout 2. Layout 4 has similar issues since it's the same as Layout 2 but with a sans-serif font.
- But if that's the way we're doing it, fine.
Oppose per criteria 1. Formatting is inconsistent throughout the work, and per style guide the proofread work should match (within reason) the stylistic choices of the original published work. Certain areas have been identified, such as captions by user Mpaa over a year and a half ago, but no effort appears to have been made to address or discuss. Ironically enough, the too-wide rule on the title page that stretches the view in mobile and certain Layouts, is another example since it's full width in the scan but some arbitrary length in the page namespace. Others include the arbitary widths assigned to the different tables of contents/illustrations (full width in original, inconsistent in transclusion/proofreading); the wrapping of the page numbers in the table of contents; improper/misplaced paragraph breaks (for example, chapter 5; see paragraph starting with the words "between the two sheets first sewn"); inconsistent/incorrect positioning of images due to the lack of a {{clear}} or other mechanism (eg. chapter 12); etc. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- But if that's the way we're doing it, fine.
Oppose- Re: rule width. I think this could be resolved by adding "max-width:100%;" to {{rule}}. More details at Template talk:Rule. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or you could just do {{rule}} without any parameters and it defaults to full width.... As I pointed out it is full width in the original work as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but the physical page is only about 27em wide. Even on half a monitor, 100% produces a line substantially longer, proportionally, than originally. To me, in this case, 100% breaks the front matter up from a fairly "neat" centred block into two when viewed on a fairly wide PC window. Perhaps because a 100%-rule (solid black) is visually much heavier than the page break line (also 100%, but lighter and dashed). It's subjective, but how it looks on a PC is as important as making it look good on mobile.
- Secondly, this doesn't fix any other case with a fixed-width rule where the width is greater than the parent. Since a phone screen can be as narrow as about 15em (about 320px for the default font size), and, moreover more narrow than the original page, there will be a lot (thousands) of these, and many of them will be cases where 100% can't be argued to represent the original intent. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
- Or you could just do {{rule}} without any parameters and it defaults to full width.... As I pointed out it is full width in the original work as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde[edit]
Messiah (1749)[edit]
Hugely popular and well known oratorio, libretto now fully validated and ready for featured status. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support, in that this is clearly a significant and meritorious text, and I'd be fine with it on the main page, but I'm not sure how much of an impact it has without the music accompanying it. BethNaught (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The Myths of Mexico and Peru[edit]
Nominating this because it treats of a region that has never been featured by us before, and differs markedly from everything else nominated recently. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support — Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Kipling's If—[edit]
Rudyard Kipling's "If—" has come a long way since it was first added to Wikisource in November 2003 (one of the first WS adds). I have recently linked the page to its 1910 source in Rewards and Fairies—which has yet to be proofread. I would like to nominate the single poem (fully validated) for Featured Text for November 2018 as it will mark the 15th anniversary (as I understand it to be) of Wikisource. Does only the poem itself need to be fully validated in order to be nominated? The WP excerpt in the notes section—should it stay or go? I figure if the poem makes Featured status, most of that info will go into the blurb anyway. Am I missing anything? Thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Featuring multiple works sounds good to me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment (1) The summary notes at the outset read more like the introduction to an English paper than an introduction to the poem. Can the text be streamlined and made more "accessible" to the general reader? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment (2) I'm not sure that this work is celebratory enough in its own right. Perhaps we could feature 4-6 different kinds of items to celebrate the 15th anniversary of WS? That is, celebrate the variety of works we do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support plus Comment — If— is a good proposal. Along with it, I would like to add Collected Physical Papers, November being the author's birth-cum-death month (provided validation is complete, of course). I have requested in Scriptorium for validation help. Hrishikes (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Another possible work to feature if we do multiple works: The Waste Land (1922) by T. S. Eliot, since (like Kipling's "If—") this was among the first works hosted on Wikisource, but has come a long way since then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
The Bird of Time[edit]
A collection of poems by Sarojini Naidu. Not only is this a wonderful collection of her poetry, but I think we need to feature more non-US/non-UK authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
The First Men in the Moon[edit]
Our copy of The First Men in the Moon first went up twelve years ago, in July in 2006, although it was a copy-paste job at that time (probably from Gutenberg). In June of last year, Jasonanaggie did a split-and-match and proofread the initial text. I added both illustrations and audio recordings of each chapter, and have now validated the whole thing. So we have now one of H. G. Wells' most popular science fiction novels, with Shepperson's illustrations, and a complete audio version as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
The Lodger[edit]
A famous horror / thriller by Marie Adelaide Belloc Lowndes, with five movie adaptations (including one by Hitchcock) and many more loose adaptations in television, comics, and other media. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
