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
February The Kiss and its History
  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.


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


  • 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|March 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


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 (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)

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

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)

Tom Brown's School Days[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Selected for December 2015.
I am nominating Tom Brown's School Days (6th ed), specifically for December, as I think it would make good holiday reading.

Tom Brown's School Days is the story of Tom Brown's adventures at Rugby School. Dr. Arnold, the headmaster in the novel, was a real person, and he reformed and improved Rugby school. The book became immensely popular very soon after it was published, establishing many of the norms of the school fiction genre for the next century. It's literary influence continues to be felt today, as it has influenced the writing of authors such as Terry Pratchett and J. K. Rowling. Its popularity also lives on in the name of the sport rugby, which previously was known as football. The popularity of the book led to the adoption of Rugby School rules for the sport and so it acquired its now familiar name.

The edition we have includes a special introduction written by the author for the 6th edition. It also includes many illustrations by the artist Louis Rhead, who took time to visit Rugby School and to research the look and style of the period. There is a Wikipedia article on the book and its several film adaptations and a wikiquote page for the book. There is a link (from both of these pages) to a LibriVox audio recording of the novel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Descent of Man (Darwin)[edit]

The Descent of Man finally made it to validated status. This work--as well as its author--is quite an important work in so many fields (biology, philosophy, etc.). I don't think we've featured a work of such stature and fame as this one in many years that'd it'd be great to put something extremely famous on the front page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment. We've featured Bertrand Russell's Problems of Philosophy and Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland within the past year or two. Both of these are of tremendous stature. But I'd agree that we haven't featured a scientific treatise of such status in the time that I've been here. Haven't yet had time to look over the nominated copy yet, although I know many fine editors have been working to prepare it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Issue: I'm finding this problem in multiple places. Perhaps someone can run a check for spaces around dashes (and be sure they are the correct sort of dash), removing the unwanted spaces. Besides this one, I find no other issues worth mentioning. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I subjected that same page (/171, and that alone) to pedantic scrutiny and subsequently found a small number of capitalisation quibbles in addition. Is an unreasonable standard being demanded of this work? Maybe after this burst of internal publicity consider it for FT after a short delay but just not quite yet? AuFCL (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have taken care of all of the spaces around em-dashes. If there are still any spaces around dashes, then the dashes would have to be the wrong kind. Are there any other recurring issues like that? BD2412 T 01:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
None that I've seen. AuFCL noticed capitalization issues on one page, but a random search hasn't turned up other examples of this problem. It may have been a tired editor just slipped for one page of editing. Thanks for taking care of the spaces issue so quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The stature of the work is such that featuring it will highlight the site itself before the readers. Hrishikes (talk) 02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support The "official" Darwin collection isn't as open as it could be, so .... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The Kiss and its History[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: selected for February 2016
This is the current PotM, and although validation is still on-going, it is finishing up quickly. At least a couple of members have expressed the thought that it might make a good Featured Text for February, because of Valentine's Day, so I'm raising awareness of the work now to give people time to scrutinize it in advance. And we do desperately need more nominations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It is now fully validated. I did a page by page run through for poetry formatting and uniformity of text, but did not check thoroughly for typos. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've been (slowly) doing the same and also checking typos/punctuation, but I still have about 30 pages left to check. So between us and the other people I've seen making such corrections, it sounds like we'll have a pretty thorough check done. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think we've ever had a Valentine's Day FT before? This looks like a good choice. C. F. 05:59, 7 January 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)