Wikisource:Featured text candidates

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured texts (candidates)
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
2016
January
February The Kiss and its History
March
April The Descent of Man (Darwin)
May
June The Fables of Florian (tr. Phelps)
July The Discovery of Radium
August
September The Adventures Of A Revolutionary Soldier
October The Panchatantra (Purnabhadra's Recension of 1199 CE)
November
December Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
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|September 2016}} 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 main namespace pages

Nominations[edit]

For older nominations, see the archives.

Notice of Gigantic Horned Dinosauria From the Cretaceous[edit]

The original description of the widely beloved dinosaur Triceratops and the lesser known but scientifically significant Nodosaurus, the armored dinosaur which has its own family named after it. This archive of Othniel Marsh's original 1889 scientific paper has been tastefully and subtly wikilinked to clarify confusing terms and enable users easy access to up-to-date information on topics discussed therein and relevant authors and works cited in the text. Abyssal (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a non-wikilinked clean copy (required)? The Haz talk 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, here are the clean versions of the pages: page 1, page 2, and page 3. Abyssal (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeHazmat2 was not asking about a clean source file, but about a clean and un-wikilinked document proofread from those files. More importantly, I can see formatting problems right away. The work needs {{small-caps}} in several places, for starters. The work needs to be cleaned up to basic standards of formatting before it could be considered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Those revisions were validated. I've corrected the small caps problem (in some places the template was in use but not functioning because the text was written in all caps) and a few minor formatting problems. I can't find any more formatting discrepencies. I'm going to create a clean version manually that should get this text up to snuff in a few hours. Abyssal (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Should be cleaned up now. Abyssal (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Well... mostly. I found several more style and textual problems, but have corrected those now. There remains one additional problem to be solved: The image caption states "natural size". So, is it? We need to ensure that any image labelled as "natural size" is displayed at the correct size. What is the size of the image in the original text? I cannot determine this solely from our electronic copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to correct those, and good catch with the "natural size". I think it should be fine to remove that caption since it will display at a different size on each monitor and at different screen resolutions anyway. The Haz talk 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Whilst at a simplistic level this is "true," from metadata on Commons one can determine the scan resolution (430x663pts) and if the worst came to the worst has anybody considered consulting user:Abyssal, or perhaps looked at the page size of the journal "American Journal of Science." Hmm? Laziness does not half explain this? unsigned comment by 121.217.225.156 (talk) .
Maybe we could replace the caption with "image in original publication displayed at natural size" or a message to that effect? Abyssal (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I personally think this is a good idea, or just measure the original if you have it and put that in the caption. I'm not sure what that last "laziness" comment is about. Even if you can calculate the size it's supposed to be you won't be able to display it at that size anyway (again, screen size and resolution).
Instead of replacing the caption, what about using a tooltip, so that the notice will appear when the mouse hovers over the text, seems like a good idea. Since this sort of thing is likely to crop up again, we might even make some kind of notation in the template documentation about how we chose to handle this situation here. This is a sort of annotation, but in a situation like this one, I think it's necessarily part of out "Best practices" to annotate for the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I typically read on a tablet or e-reader, so perhaps I'm biased, but I'm not a fan of the tooltip idea in this case. Let's see what others think. The Haz talk 03:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think "natural size" is a problem; it's just a reproduction, just as the source scan is not actually natural size unless you zoom just perfectly. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree in most cases, but not in a scientific article setting forth morphology, where an image is captioned "natural size". --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Fables of Florian (tr. Phelps)[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: selected for June 2016
This is a collection of short fables for children, complete with illustrations and rhyme. It is different from what we have featured recently, and makes for an interesting browse.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Support, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. It would help if someone familiar with this work could write a blurb for the Main Page. I'm always happy to help put selected works in place for FT, if the blurb is already written. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems I contributed some to this work back in my early days (poem tag is used)—so who knows what errors might be lurking under the transcluded surface. I'll give it a look-over for uniformity of formatting. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was nominated in 2012; not enough support. Take a look at this list from User:ArjunaraocTop 100 downloads using wsexport tool. Many of those relatively popular downloads are far from Featured Text status, but at least it shows us what our down-loaders are interested in. On Liberty and Dictionary of spoken Spanish are not too far behind the Bible — so they're doing pretty well! :). And the Dictionary of spoken Spanish isn't even complete! I think it would help if we tried to upgrade the files that are being downloaded to Feature status, or upgrade something similar. Just my thoughts.... Outlier59 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Do we let current popular trends dictate Featured status? or do we offer something original to readers? Perhaps both. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I think both. Something exceptionally interesting from past publications or current public domain publications, with awareness of current seasons/trends. Like February's "Kiss" book. Just right for Valentine's Day. Do we have anything on Cinco de Mayo? Outlier59 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Agree, both. I was surprised to see the text here was the first result in a google search on 'fables on Florian'. Even if it not a featured 'featured text' (the consensus is that 'we' think this ideal, but it wasn't on the front page), it should be carefully checked for errors. @EP: I could cobble together a blurb if this gains some support. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 10:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: Thanks for offering to do the blurb. I don't think we have to worry about too many options. In the past year we've several times had to "repeat" a FT because there were not enough usable nominations. I'm also OK with a validated nomination sitting around for a time if people are actively working to improve any issues. The selection could always be featured at a later date. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@Outlier59: On Liberty has yet to be proofread, much less validated, but would make a valuable addition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: It looks like On Liberty has been here for a decade or more; it's "incomplete" due to the change to proofing against a scanned copy — the text is available in mainspace, chapter 1 from the scanned text. The djvu has been flagged for Google watermarks. I think that means a match & split, which means reverting everything to not-proofed. I'm inclined to give it a pass right now, but might take it up with fewer complications down the road. Outlier59 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I have gone through the text, corrected some template placement errors, and tweaked formatting some for standardization. I also checked MS pages for transclusion. I did not check for typos. Thank you, @Outlier59:, for offering a clean cover image for possible inclusion. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Sorry about that previous digression! :( The book cover was meant as a peace offering. Unfortunately, I have a very specific concern: all the pages have <references /> in the footer, nowhere applicable. I'm willing to do a bot-like early-morning-zombie minor edit to remove the <references /> in the footers during this coming week. @Zhaladshar: @EncycloPetey: and @Cygnis insignis: Can you please check for typos and any other concerns related to Wikisource:Featured texts? Outlier59 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I looked over pages 60–80. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
1-30, 41-59, 81-105 are checked. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I looked through 31-40.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
<references /> have been removed from footers Outlier59 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Remaining pages have been checked for typos, etc. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support if this meets all the criteria. I don't know how many votes are needed, but as of today, last year's May "Featured Text" is showing up because there's no "Featured Text" for this month this year. I think we need a few more in the pipeline.... Outlier59 (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
No minimum number of votes is required, just a consensus and meeting the stated requirements. However, this text can't be featured without a blurb for the Main Page section. The lack of a blurb is often a stumbling block, as people wait until after the start of the month to write one. I'm beginning to think that submitting a "blurb" for the Main Page should be a requirement of FT nomination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Suggested blurb:

The Fables of Florian is an eighteenth century book of fables authored by the French poet and romance writer Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian. Animals were employed symbolically to represent human foibles like pride, pretentiousness, greed and so on. Although inspired by earlier masters like Aesop and La Fontaine, this work has a lighter touch than the ancient classics, is similarly witty but less cruel, and the poetry is flavored with an earlier eighteenth century pastoral mode. This ancient regime mode of writing caused the author to be imprisoned in 1793 by the radical revolutionary government of the Terror. Among the best of his fables are reckoned The Monkey showing the Magic Lantern, The Blind Man and the Paralytic, and The Monkeys and the Leopard. Several aphorisms of colloquial French were derived from Florian's fables.

Hrishikes (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I like that. Outlier59 (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Selected and posted, and I've protected its primary page. However, someone still needs to go through and protect the other 52 main namespace pages of the text, one by one, for the duration of the month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains[edit]

This work, although full of whimsical and archaic spelling and displays a significant lack of knowledge while discussing local culture, is nevertheless noteworthy for being one of the earliest works presenting before the world a visual display of Himalayan and other Indian scenery. The watercolors are quite good, this author's paintings discussed/listed at 1, 2, 3. Hrishikes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

At present I can't support for technical reasons. The display version of the images need to be drastically reduced in size. The first image on the main page is far too big at 9 Mb. I had to kill the page load to get my computer to respond. I see that the other images are of a similar size. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Rectifications done. Hrishikes (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The scaled-down duplicates you have created will be candidates for deletion at Commons. The Mediawiki platform contains features that make it unnecessary to host multiple versions of an image at a range of resolutions. These features are accessed by using the standard [[Image:...]] wikicode to embed images. The problem here is that you have used {{FI}} to bypass those standard features. This problem should not be "solved" by uploading multiple versions of the same image. The solution is to embed the images in the standard manner intended by the Mediawiki platform. Hesperian 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please rectify one image by your method, so that I can understand the procedure? I understood that BWC was objecting to the actual size in mb of the images and took action accordingly. Hrishikes (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
[1] Hesperian 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok now? Hrishikes (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: It would help us here on Wikisource if mw:Help:Images were more widely known. I've been bumbling around using various image templates. Can a note be put on the image template pages to guide Wikisource editors to mw:Help:Images? It lists all the options/pipes. Outlier59 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Discovery of Radium[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: selected for July 2016
I like this so I'm nominating this. I'm not sure I'm doing this right. I don't know all the rules. Outlier59 (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
I just noticed that Marie Curie doesn't have very many publications listed on her author page here in English Wikisource. I see two volumes published in French at archives.org[2][3], but I don't see any English translations. I can't read French. Does anyone know of any English translations? Outlier59 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Radio-active substances "Reprinted from the Chemical News, 1903, vol. 88, p. 85."

Selected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Usable Nominations for Featured Text[edit]

There are some great texts here on Wikisource, but the change from using "available texts" to djvu sourcing with direct text-scan comparison is making many older works problematic (no supporting scan). I think Tarzan of the Apes is a good example. A popular story which would make a good Featured Text these days -- but doesn't meet Featured Text requirements. Tarzan of the Apes might not be considered high-literature (I think it was classified "pulp fiction"), but it's a fun story, very much a product of its time in history, and also very much a reminder that history repeats itself.

Another text that I might nominate ... Jungle Tales of Tarzan.. same problem.

Comments?

Outlier59 (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What's preventing you from adding the scans, which are readily available? 1, 2. Hrishikes (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Ditto, and note: Kathleen.wright and I have been working to upgrade the Barsoom stories with scans. My hope is that we can feature A Princess of Mars in October, 2017, since that will mark the 100th anniversary of the story's publication in book form. If the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories interest you, you could help start The Gods of Mars, which has an Index page already set up and ready for proofreading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I read all the Tarzan and and John Carter books available from Project Gutenberg earlier this year. That's why I thought of them as an example. (I couldn't figure out how to add Wikisource to my FBReader network library, so I downloaded the books from Gutenberg.) I might enjoy reading them again in a year or two, but not right now. I wouldn't mind doing The Jungle Book, but I couldn't find a clean edition on Internet Archives; the illustrations looked blotchy.

I've probably brought this question up in the wrong place. I was wondering if proofread texts (say, from Project Gutenberg) might be allowed as Featured Texts until there's a larger pool of proofread texts with linked scans here. Outlier59 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of proofread texts here with linked scans. The problem is: (1) People don't validate, so the queue for validations is always growing, and (2) People don't nominate very often, or follow up on nominations.
Some examples of works waiting for validation that would make great selections: Dubliners by James Joyce, Green Mansions by William Henry Judson, The Call of the Wild by Jack London, Kipps by H. G. Wells, A History of Japanese Literature by W. G. Aston.
Some examples of works that could be nominated right now: Riders of the Purple Sage by Zane Grey, Mike: A public school story by P. G. Wodehouse, The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot, The Japanese Fairy Book by Iwaya Sazanami.
And this is just a small sampling of items, besides which there are many, many more that could be completed in short order and make a great choice, such as Deccan Nursery Tales --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (Century edition)[edit]

A first American edition (I think) of Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book, from 1894. This seems to be a timely text in reasonably good condition here on Wikisource. The illustration placement presentation in mainspace is messy, but the images themselves look decent to me. It's fully validated but obviously needs some clean-up for "Featured Text" status. I'm putting this in the "Featured Text" queue because (1) the queue is too short, (2) this is a lovely collection of short stories that have endured in our culture for many years. [... and ... (3) I saw the 2015 movie, and it has incredibly realistic animation of the animals, and actor Neel Sethi did a great job as "Mowgli"]. Outlier59 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Object—while it is an early American edition, the fact remains that it is not an English edition. My strong preference is to only feature works in editions from their country of origin (translations excepted). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Noted, but the purpose of FT is to showcase the best that we have, not to focus on what we lack. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The transcluded version is not displaying correctly. Image captions are being inserted into the middle of text on the line below the illustrations. This will need to be corrected. Also, the spacing and layout of items in the transcluded version needs work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Different editors used [[File:...]], template FI, or template FIS for the image display. All three were used in The Jungle Book (Century edition)/Mowgli's Brothers. Looks like a FIS template quirk. @ShakespeareFan00: have you seen this? Do you know what's causing the captions indide the main text? Outlier59 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Not sure without lookign more closely. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
OK yes this would seem to be an issue with {{FIS}}. AS I can't see anything obvious otherwise..ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
Why are templates instead of [[file:..]] needed in this work? Outlier59 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
No apparent reason. {{c|[[File:...|...px]]}}{{nop}} should suffice here. Hrishikes (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Instead of putting the File inside a {{center}} template, just use [[File:...|center|...px]]; you can center an image without adding the extra template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, I can run through this work and change the images back to their earlier [[File:...]]. Give me a few days to get this done.
Meanwhile, could someone please look at this weird thing.... [4] shows the usual "Page body (to be transcluded):". [5] shows a weird <a href="/wiki/Help:Page_status" title="Help:Page status">Page status</a>. Not sure if that might be impacting the images. Outlier59 (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
fixed? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
See how The Jungle Book (Century edition)/Mowgli's Brothers looks now. I made the images larger, centered them. The only way to include the caption in the image file spec is to use "frame" or "thumb". "Frameless" doesn't display the caption. So captions are centered underneath. Alt tags should display on rollover, if you have alt tags enabled. Outlier59 (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm[edit]

I am proposing this classic children's novel for FT. Hrishikes (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The primary page in the Main namespace needs restructuring. It looks like a garbled mess of random content (with the contents too far down the page), and ends with page 1 of the main text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Modified. Hrishikes (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm setting this work for December 2016, but we'll need a blurb for the main page explaining what this work is and why it is significant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures Under Ground[edit]

While I know Alice's Adventures in Wonderland has been featured recently, this is the handwritten version of Carroll's famous work that he gave to Alice Liddell. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As you say, another version this work has been featured recently. Variety in FT is very important. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I was more thinking, if you're at a stage where you're doing repeats, you may as well use a notable alternative version. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd say it's out of the running. See the index talk page. -- Outlier59 (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The "Bab" Ballads[edit]

These are fun poems, and many of them were inspirations for Gilbert's later plays and operas. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Hrishikes (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Hymns (1860)[edit]

Not a notable collection, but includes many notable hymns, many of which were not previously on WS, or were not scan-backed. A better option would be Lyra Catholica, which is the original source of the notable hymns' translations, but who knows when that will be complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Decrees of the Vatican Council[edit]

Highly important documents in the history of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are much more important so maybe we'd want to hold off until the latter is complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Eight or Nine Wise Words about Letter-Writing[edit]

I think this little work by Carroll is interesting, fun, and quaint. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church[edit]

This work brings together several translations of seven highly notable mediaeval hymns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A good selection, as I don't think we've ever featured a work on music before, but this needs some cleanup of format and links. There are at least some links in the work that are red and will always remain so, because they link to titles of works that were not written in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd be willing to clean up further. I don't believe redlinks are a problem, as all of the linked works may be added in the future as translations. I don't know what further cleanup would be desired with formatting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not the existence of re links per se, although such links do indeed attract vandals when present in FT. No, my concern is for red links to non-English titles. Yes, we might some day have a translation here of Dante's Cantate spirituali, but it's extremely unlikely that the English translation would have that title. It's also my experience that red links to titles often use an incomplete or even incorrect title, so the link is not completed when the target work in finally added to Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Australian Legendary Tales[edit]

A late 19th century work of a white woman's interpretation of indigenous Australian's dreamtime (folklore), and I understand that it is one of the first published works of indigenous Australians' mythology (citation needed). It is an illustrated work, and has librivox recordings on each page, and an introduction by Lang, renowned folklorist and anthropologist of that period. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I should note that the work does have its own wikipedia article, and is subject to published commentary. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The index file might need a bit of clarification, for those folks looking at the source and seeing problematic and not-proofed pages. On a quick scan, the images look good to me. :) Someone might want to make sure the Librivox recordings match THIS text before it gets featured. Outlier59 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To my understanding FT status has been applied based on the presentation in main ns (the work proper), rather than the state of the index file. I have corrected the index page to categorise to advertising not transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I assume other people besides me also click on tabs and links for a FT work to see what went into it and how well-documented it is. OK, I admit, that's nerdy....
The index file looks good! And I listened to the Librivox on Australian Legendary Tales/The Mayamah -- which is the 12th story in this collection. The narrator refers to this story as "Chapter 12" (this version does not contain chapter numbers). Other than that, I'd say it's a good reading.
The OCLC World Cat cover[6] differs from the cover we have for this version. Do we have the original edition here? If not, we might want to note that this is a reprint or something. Outlier59 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The text needs some formatting cleanup. In this tale, for example, the block quotes come in two different sizes in the transclusion, even through they are they same size as each other in the original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The Panchatantra (Purnabhadra's Recension of 1199 CE)[edit]

The work here went through POTM. Original text is the most translated non-religious text in history, per Wikipedia. This translation is by the finest translator America has produced, per Wikipedia. Hrishikes (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main page needs some sort of introductory text about this particular edition, if we can provide it. Since this is our only edition of the work at present, it could also benefit from a brief explanation of the origin and nature of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not our only edition. Another edition is Index:The Fables of Bidpai (Panchatantra).djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Then we need a versions page, and links both ways between that page and the versions themselves. This version will need to have its own data item at Wikidata, and the versions page should be linked to the primary data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBeleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main page needs some sort of introductory text about this particular edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm slotting this in as the October 2016 FT. However, we still need someone to write the blurb for the main page what explains what this work is, who wrote it, it's significance, and provide information about this particular edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Adventures Of A Revolutionary Soldier[edit]

primary source for Revolutionary War (colonial perspective). first edition, not on gutenberg. Slowking4RAN's revenge 16:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm slotting this in as the September 2016 FT. However, we still need someone to write the blurb for the main page what explains what this work is, who wrote it, and its significance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Pro Patria (Coates)[edit]

A little early, but proposed for April 2017 FT. April being poetry month, and 2017 marking the 100th anniversary of the work, this pamphlet of poetry in support of American involvement in WWI also includes excerpts from President Wilson's Address to the Congress of the United States on April 2, 1917. A WP article also exists for the work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I think this might make a better selection for July than April, especially if we end up with a longer poetical offering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I feel it is significant (for FT purposes) that American entry into the war also took place in April, and that length of text offering is perhaps less significant a factor. Some may also feel that two works of poetry in a year (April & July) as FT may be too much. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Pollyanna[edit]

This is a classic children's book which not only is a cracking read, even for an adult (speaking as one), but also had a significant cultural impact. I think it would make a great Featured Text. BethNaught (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)