Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2006

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Gettysburg Address


Well known, proofread, and meets the criteria for inclusion. Danny 10:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Well, I'm one of the proof-readers here, but I believe that it fits the criteria for featured texts:
    1. It conforms to the style guidelines.
    2. It's been proofread by multiple (three, myself, User:AllanHainey and User:BirgitteSB) users
    3. It cites external sources (hand written copies of the original address) in all cases.
    It obviously isn't protected at the minute, but I believe that it fits the current criteria. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 11:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Texts that are candidates for featured status shouldn't be protected so users can make last-minute adjustments. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 16:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the only 100% level text we have.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --BirgitteSB 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support.{admin} Pathoschild 16:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - AllanHainey 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Shanel 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-banjee 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


I just reworked the notes sections throughot the page. I did not make any changes to the actual texts. Supporters, please take another look and see if you think further tweaking is warranted. --BirgitteSB 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yep, it needs more work ;-)? It looks much better, Birgitte, with all of the extra {{Edition}} gone.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I meant I still support it; I misread the question. ;) —{admin} Pathoschild 16:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured.{admin} Pathoschild 03:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dulce et Decorum Est

Votes (7): 7 support (100%), 0 oppose (0%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: 14 (about SVC)

Dulce et Decorum Est is a moving condemnation of war short enough for the casual reader, yet deep for the most dedicated. It has been proofread by three users— one of which did so from a hard copy— and compared against multiple sources. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support.Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - AllanHainey 11:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as one of the proof readers. I just updated it to reflect the Italics of my hard copy, as well. I thought I'd done this, but I must've forgotten to... Jude (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --BirgitteSB 14:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - banjee 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Politicaljunkie 19:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This text will be featured in the next period (August 2006). —{admin} Pathoschild 07:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Time Machine

Votes (5): 5 support (100%), 0 oppose (0%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: 6.5 (about SVC)

The Time Machine was the first featured text candidate and the first to be unlisted as invalid. Since the original discussion, the text has been proofread additionally, split, and standardised. As far as I can tell, all the concerns raised in the prior discussion have been addressed. Following is the original description:

The Time Machine by H. G. Wells, published in 1895, introduced the concept of controlled time travel. [...] The text is well-formatted, links to an adequate Wikipedia article, and is quite an interesting read.

{admin} Pathoschild 03:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This text will be featured in September 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

A Drink Problem

Votes (4): 4 support (100%), 0 oppose (0%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: 3.8 (about SVC)

A Drink Problem has been proofread by four users, including the contributor. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Elegie II

(no description.) unsigned comment by AllanHainey (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2006.

  • Support 1633 editon of a poem by w:John Donne. It is actually quite funny since it is a parody of cliched love poems. If you have already looked over, I just made some updates to the notes as well as adding links to Wikipedia. --BirgitteSB 02:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • SupportZhaladshar (Talk) 21:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This text will be featured in November 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Come not, when I am dead

Votes (5): 5 support (100%), 0 oppose (0%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: 6.5 (about SVC)

A philosophical poem by Alfred Tennyson first published in The Keepsake in 1842. I proofread it against five online sources and one print source available online, and provided differential links on the talk page for comparisons. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This work will be featured in December 2006. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


The New Student's Reference Work/Zoölogy

Votes (2): 1 support (50%), 1 oppose (50%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: -0.1 (about SVC)

(no description.) unsigned comment by AllanHainey (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2006.

  • Oppose: It is an article on Zoölogy, so what? I think we can do better for featured text. --Benn Newman 03:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    How does it not meet the criteria? I haven't worked on it for a while but I don't think it is inherently unfeaturable.--BirgitteSB 20:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I just don't like it as a featured text. 8) --Benn Newman 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Resignation letter (Roosevelt)

Votes (2): 1 support (50%), 0 oppose (0%), 1 neutral (50%).
WSRc: -0.1 (about SVC)

(no description.) unsigned comment by AllanHainey (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2006.

  • Neutral, needs to be formated still. --Benn Newman 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Northwestern University Commencement Address

Votes (4): 1 support (25%), 2 oppose (50%), 1 neutral (25%).
WSRc: -0 (about SVC)

(no description.) unsigned comment by AllanHainey (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2006.

Positive factors in becoming a Featured Text admission

1) He makes some profound statements that should be of interest to people outside the community of his seated audience. Because of that it could be a part of Wikisource Featured Texts.

2) The Wikisource conversion is 100 percent accurate.

Negative factors for Featured Text status

1) It is readily available on the senator's web site in easily accessible html, thus its presence isn't unique.

2) This presentation doesn't involve any special formatting or provide anything extra to the reader than what is available from other sources.

What are the qualities needed for Featured Text status? Is it the complexities and effort involved in accurately converting something to Wikisource text? Is it providing something to the reader that isn't otherwise easily readable or available? Is it the display of something that is newsworthy and likely to be an historical document both now and in the future? Or, what if the community just decides something is quite good and worthy of dissemination to others?Jmcneill2 07:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Hello Jmcneill2. This discussion isn't about the inclusion of the text in Wikisource, which is more or less certain. This discussion will decide whether it should be prominently featured on Wikisource's main page as one of our best texts. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Benn Newman (AMDG) 03:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Democracy in Belarus

Votes (2): 1 support (50%), 1 oppose (50%), 0 neutral (0%).
WSRc: -0.1 (about SVC)

(no description.) unsigned comment by AllanHainey (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2006.

  • Mild support --Benn Newman 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose, current discussion about recent speeches. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 19:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed, insufficient support. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

ACLU v. NSA Opinion

Votes (6): 3 support (50%), 2 oppose (33.3%), 1 neutral (16.7%).
WSRc: 0.5 (about SVC)

Pros - Timely text that is relevant and likely to capture the casual browser's interest more than a poem, styles and formatted worked out by two users, a 'very nice' example of wikification, quote indentations and citations, historically important document (NSA Wiretapping)

Cons - US-centric, could even be argued to be "POV" in a sense Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm neutral at the moment. Although it'd be good to advertise current notable works, I doubt the casual browser looking for an interesting read will be thrilled by a 30-page legal judgment. Featuring it would be a good way of advertising it to news sources and the like looking for a place to link to when discussing it, though. I'd prefer to feature poems and books, but then I've always had a certain bias against lengthy legal decisions when choosing my bedtime reading. :)

    From a more objective standpoint, it seems to be complete. I added an online source from the district court website and a summary from Wikipedia. I don't think a point of view is a bad thing. I'd even prefer to have works with a slanted point of view, as that makes for more interesting reading—as long as we're not biased in our selection of viewpoints. —[admin] Pathoschild 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral, per Pathoschild. --Benn Newman 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Oppose for now, the formatting is still being worked on. --Benn Newman (AMDG) 16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm the other user that Sherurcij refers to as a contributor to this wikisource article. I first stepped in on August 29th, after Sherurcij had done the initial 25 edits. I am happy that our effort is being considered for Featured text status. I think the vast majority of browsers who click on this wikisource text will be a result of the link provided on the ACLU v. NSA page. I agree that a Featured text rating for this article will enable more people to find an accurate and yet highly readable and understandable source of information on the subject they are looking for. The only other accurate text is the 44 page PDF file which I hope you haven't had to read. I have made a few more wiki link corrections and have updated the category listings at the bottom of the page. I compared the text in a side by side reading to the pdf original from the court's web site. I make no claim that I have caught all of the errors or that all improvements have been made. Unlike Sherurcij, I find no "Con" side to a Featured Text rating. I believe there are still a few more changes that should be considered. I would have already made them but it should probably be discussed first as those changes involve other people's work.

    You may want to consider changing the page title to ACLU v. NSA Opinion That is what the judge calls her effort on the court's web site. 'Opinions - Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (2006)'

    I have tried to find other examples of the indentation style that Sherurcij prefers for this text but I am at a loss. Both of the Supreme Court Featured Articles Dred Scott v. Sandford and Roe v. Wade make use of the plain "blockquote" indentation style in their wikisource texts. Dred Scott does make an attempt at a colorless blocking style that Sherurcij perfected but it seems to be at a dead end. I've checked these other somewhat famous wikisource legal texts and they all use the plain blockquote style.

    Bush v. Gore
    Gideon v. Wainwright
    Marbury v. Madison
    Miranda v. Arizona
    Plessy v. Ferguson
    Texas v. Johnson

    I placed this indentation question before the Scriptorium forum and received a nice reply from BirgitteSB. She said the original document should provide a formating style guideline. Wikisource:Scriptorium#What_is_the_best_method_of_displaying_quotations_within_Wikisource.3F

    Personally, I find the blue color box style quotation structure somewhat interesting even though it hasn't been used in any other wikisource text that I can find.

    I have done other articles John William Vessey Jr. that have also received quality ratings.Jmcneill2 06:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now For a text this size and level of difficulty I think we need more than two proofreaders before we can say it is 100% proofread. Perhaps someone can make a mechanical comparison to the pdf? I am not sure how that was done for the Time Machine.--BirgitteSB 18:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    The Time Machine was proofread by comparing the text to a large number of online sources. This may or may not be possible from a portable document format, depending on the options it was saved with. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I have proofed this and it is 100% accurate. Theophobic 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I consider the formatting work on this text finished. Extensive linking has been done and significant indentations for quotes have been made. Text accuracy has been verifed by 3 users.Jmcneill2 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed, insufficient support. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


The Time Machine

The Time Machine by H. G. Wells, published in 1895, introduced the concept of controlled time travel. The text is the current placeholder in {{featured text}}, and can be seen on the proposed main page at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Main_page/Synthesis. The text is well-formatted, links to an adequate Wikipedia article, and is quite an interesting read. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support it being made a featured text. It's a well formatted work that is an example of what all works on Wikisource should be like. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The text is 176 kilobytes. Should it not be split first?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    176kB seems like a reasonable size to me. It's easily handled by any modern browser, and it doesn't take very long to load even on a dialup connection. I'm not opposed to splitting it, though. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time as it isn't yet protected and doesn't have a Wikisource:Text quality template, Template:Textinfo or Template:Edition. Once these are done I'll be happy to support though. AllanHainey 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    Howsoever much I disagree with their placement on a featured text, I'm apparently the only one who holds that opinion; I've added the templates. Regarding protection, note that the guideline states "However, it should not be protected during the discussion to allow improvement". // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    No, I dislike the templates as well. I just haven't been brave enough to begin a serious discussion about their merits. I dislike most of the templates we put on pages here, but since it seemed everyone else likes them, I just kept quiet.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
    Change my opinion to Support. AllanHainey 07:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    I'm just curious as to what the level of being proofread is? As far as I can see, no one has yet proofed it (let alone multiple users) against a reference edition, meaning this work isn't even at the 75% mark.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Hmm, I see you're right, User:Maio and User: are noted as having proofread & corrected this but they didn't make any edits on the talk page to add their own names, or on the article page. I'm also interested in how a 100% text quality level was arrived at. I'm removing my support right now till this gets sorted out. AllanHainey 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    On Wikisource:Text quality, a page reaches 100% when multiple users proofread the text against a reference edition. Basically, 100% is taking a text at 75% (meaning it has been proofed once) and doing it a few more times.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Yes but what I mean is that User:Maio and User: haven't signed their own names as having proofread this, so how do we know they have? AllanHainey 14:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    Ah. Yes. I propose that we disregard that proofreading, since we don't know anything about it. Maio has long since stopped being active at WS, and we can't track down IPs, so we can't figure what (if any) they used as a reference edition.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    The users didn't sign themselves because the box was only placed there a few days ago. I don't think a proofreader should only be considered a proofreader if they add their name to a little registry to make it 'official'. That said, I don't mind disregarding their proofreading efforts; I just added in their names because I'm unaccustomed to using the text quality template, and they seemed appropriate to the field. In that case, the article is not eligible for featured text status and will be unlisted in a day or two. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I ask how you know these proofreaders actually proofread the text if they didn't sign off anywhere that they had done so?

I don't think it's necessary to unlist this text - leave it listed & hopefully someone will be prompted to proofread it & certify it as 100% text quality. The problems with this have convinced me that we need some sort of procedure for proofreading & verifying texts to get them to 100%, unfortunately I don't know how we can get this to work as proofreading a text we already have and which you didn't add, is rather dull, monotonous (reading every line twice - aargh) & tricky so I wouldn't expect it to be a popular activity, especially if they've already been certified as 75% because most folk can think of better things to do than proofread a text that's already been proofread once. AllanHainey 07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If I can find a decent edition, I enjoy proofreading. I love proofing EB1911 pages. I don't really find it all that dull, but it is fairly time consuming. Really, though, if we split up the job among chapters, it won't be nearly as daunting as a task. That's the road I think we should go, too. One user isn't required to verify the entire text (he can if he wants too, though)--verification should be split up and smaller jobs should be allocated among different users. That way it won't get so monotonous so quickly because they've only got a small(er) amount to have to double check before they are done.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Case Against Vaccination

In the interests of building up a bank of texts, and given how long the Time machine discussion is taking, I thought I'd nominate this one (& I'd suggest we get a few more nominated so we can start getting them up to the required quality). It is a quite interesting & polemical criticism of the practice of compulsory vaccination, quite unusual to modern pro-vaccination sensibilities. It is currently 75% text quality (I believe we only have 75% texts in any case) and available on a few places on the net (the listed source is the most accurate) so easy for it to be proofread by another user to get to 100%. This is currently protected but if there are any changes to be made it can be easily unprotected. AllanHainey 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now; the talk page states "Error in document either "Government Microscopist Farn" or "Fain"", so the work isn't entirely complete. It doesn't meet the multiple proofreaders criteria, either. The text quality currently states the text to be at 75% quality, whereas the guidelines state 100% as a minimum. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • In all the original sources of this I checked it referred once to Farn & once to Fain so the text here matches the source. On the 75%/100% We don't actually have any texts at 100% and are unlikely to unless peoples attention are drawn to 75% texts which they can proofread. That's why I've listed these 3. AllanHainey 07:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Speech against the Union

A very famous speech, in Scotland at least, I'd love to see as a featured text (I had intended it as a featured speech for the speeches portal). It was an eloquent & impassioned but futile attempt, against large-scale bribery, to prevent the 1707 union of Scotland and England. Again 75% and available on-line (though almost impossible to find in written form) so can be proofread, though only of course against the available on-line source. AllanHainey 14:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The talk page template notes that the text is "reasonably reliable[, but] Should be checked against a copy of speech from another source." AllanHainey's comment on the page also brings into doubt the reliability of the source that was used, citing what seem to be possible typos. The text quality currently states the text to be at 75% quality, whereas the guidelines state 100% as a minimum. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The quote is just my standard notes info for most of the sources I've added. It matches the source I obtained it from but, as on most sources I've added, I've suggested it should be checked against another source for completeness. Partly this was due to my concern over spelling of anahaptists & Ann but I'm not too concerned about this as spelling was inconsistent & erratic at that time. I think, as in common with our policy, proofreading against the cited source is sufficient to get this to 100%. AllanHainey 07:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Petition against the Introduction of Slavery

The first public petition in North America against the introduction of slavery. This is a bit iffy as a nomination as it isn't available on-line but was transcribed directly from a published source. I suggest it in the hope it can be made an honourable exception to the only on-line sources as featured texts rule. It is 75% text quality & the only reason it isn't 100% is because there isn't a 2nd user to verify it. If anyone has the source in a library near them please check so it can be moved up to 100%. AllanHainey 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems promising, but I think we should be careful to have transcribed texts verified by multiple proofreaders. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree & am hopeful someone else can proofread this, however it does show up a problem with the policy in that there are a lot of sources (I'm transcribing a few now) which aren't available on-line & are hard to get in a published version - these can't be featured articles, neither can sources obtained from internet pages which are now dead, a big problem as wikisource doesn't seek to limit itself in its collection of texts to those currently available on-line. AllanHainey 07:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rest of the Story: Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda

unsigned comment by Patchouli (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2006.

  • Oppose. The work is nonstandard, unformatted, and uncategorised; please review the guidelines before proposing a work for featured status. If nobody objects, I'll close this discussion early due to the obvious result. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    No objection.--Patchouli 08:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    Closed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)