Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2013

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 , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


February 2013 suggestion

The following discussion is closed:

Proclamation 95 featured for January 2012 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know that The Art of Nijinsky was chosen for Jan 2013, but proofreading Weld's The Bible Against Slavery reminded me that January marks the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps we have several works related to anti-slavery, etc. that could be put in FT rotation in commemoration? Maybe February's slot, as it is Black History Month (and Lincoln's birthday)? Just thinking out loud, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Black History Month wouldn't be too bad for something on Lincoln but know that many in this nation do not view Lincoln as someone to celebrate. He brought war to the south and his armies left the south in ruins due to their huge population and massive industrial capabilities. That war which Lincoln brought to this split nation never had to happen. Then for 12 years there was "Reconstruction" for the southerners to endure as political persons favored by the enemy government ( northern government) into southern positions and no one who had served their homeland, families, and friends in support of the Confederate States of the South were allowed to even vote. What about Lee-Jackson Day celebrated in the South? What about "Maury Day" that was once celebrated in all of Virginia's schools? The Emancipation Proclamation served as propaganda for slaves to rise up in the south and war against southerners. Note that no states that had slaves and did not side with the Confederacy had to free their slaves. Note too that Lincoln's speech freed no slaves. It was political propaganda. In reference to the Bible were and still are books supporting slavery and the Bible. There were ministers who debated each other on the topic. This entire nation was divided before Lincoln started that war by invading the south. Lincoln knowingly "required" 75,000 armed troops to form and march against the lower southern states. No way were her sister states going to produce a quota and march against their own people and Lincoln wasn't that stupid to think the other southern states would produce those troops. Instead, more states not in the Confederacy joined the Confederacy and none started the war until they were provoked by Lincoln sending ships against the south. In short, the north, with thousands of immigrants, i.e. as those from Ireland and desperate from the years of the potato famine, were placed as pawns to fight against the south -- an area of people they did not even know. The poor and desperate Irish (part of my ancestry) fought and slaughtered one another in Fredericksburg, Virginia which is where one often can hear of "brother against brother" —William Maury Morris IITalk 02:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: If The Bible Against Slavery can be put in order in time, then I'd favor featuring that text, as it covers both a historical and a religious angle. We haven't had an American history text for well over a year (Susan B. Anthony in Sept 2011), and I don't think a religious text of any sort has ever been featured here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I don't know how the military works today but not long ago there were certain things one did not talk about because it causes disputes among people. Religions were one of those things not to chat about because it can cause disputes. This may be why the Bible has not been featured here -- which Bible?, which version? -- why not converse and produce works of other religions in total fairness -- why not the most holy prophet that many nations of today follow? -- Disputes then wars and more is a good reason not to bring up some things since we all have our beliefs and perhaps none of these match everyone's religious beliefs. There was, in near history, a lady who drew images that she apparently decided were interesting and the FBI offered to place her elsewhere, for her own protection, and with a different identity. This area on WS covers the WORLD. It is not confined to any one version of "The Bible" of Christianity or did you mean a different Bible? —William Maury Morris IITalk 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the military has to do with featuring a text, but I am always irked by people who think "the world" and "fairness" somehow apply to everything except Christianity. I have sat at a company dinner at which someone proclaimed, in all seriousness, "We should kill all the Christians." I hope that you are as offended by that sentiment as I was, because genocide ranks among the foulest of crimes. Please be as tolerant of Christianity as you would want others to be tolerant of your beliefs, and do not single out one people or one set of beliefs for persecution. If you truly believe in fairness, then you must be fair to Christianity. Censoring a text from being featured, simply because it is a religious text, is counter to fairness, tolerance, and the spirit of wiki. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The military just served as one simple example. The point was that some situations can cause problems that quickly grow out of proportion. I am not always "irked" by what I see or hear, so that comment you heard would not apply to me. It is the deeds that follow, whether null, bad or good that count in my viewpoints. I would not be "offended" about such as statement that you have presented. Since you were so annoyed by it then what is it that you did because of that statement? I would suggest that you did nothing and the reason, at least in part, would be because you knew better than to try something. Regarding my being tolerant about Christianity is almost funny because you are far off course in that statement. I am a Christian, was baptized as a baby, and confirmed at age 12 in my Episcopal church. My ancestry, for the most part, after leaving Europe for religious freedoms here were men of the cloth, Episcopalian. The Rev. James Maury was am ancestor who taught his children, as well as the likes of Thomas Jefferson who lived with my kin for 2 years. Ministers of God are threaded all throughout my family down through history. I myself I was an alter boy as a teen (complete with black and white robe) and at one point a singer in my church choir. I once was in Theocratic Ministry school. I still sing at my preferred church but being inclined to some open mindedness, I am no longer just in an Episcopal church which my own ancestors built stone by stone. But I am also aware of the things I have written prior to this. I think that perhaps you get offended too easily because my points were not looking towards any person here. My points were about religions of the world and how some people will get more than annoyed or irked as you once did. Regardless that this area is a "wiki", it presents materials to the *world* including the Middle East. It is not good to stir up dust because all too often our soldiers shed their blood in it. 'Nuff said, Godspeed, —William Maury Morris IITalk 04:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment at the risk of stirring the pot, we are already having a set of works with a religious theme in October with the theme for Hallowe'en. Sure, it's a pagan religious theme, but it is nonetheless religious.

With respect to LJB's original suggestion of celebrating Black History month, I think it might be better to move Nijinksy to later in 2013 and feature appropriate text(s) for the 150th anniversary in January. I freely admit that this is because I would like to see a New Zealand work in February, as that month celebrates the founding of our nation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Nijinsky can be moved and we can even repeat the Halloween cyclic approach for a few texts in January if that works and there is agreement. Regarding the controversy and divisiveness of the Emancipation Proclamation, it seems to be a significant anniversary of a significant historical document. It may be propaganda but it is at least notable, historical propaganda. (That said, the current Emancipation Proclamation page should probably be split—I've tagged it but I'll wait for an opinion here—it's half validated & scan-backed (acceptable for FT) and half second-hand text with no source or provenance (not acceptable). In general I prefer balance rather than avoidance in these situations: we can always feature an appropriate pro-Confederate text, either during a January cycle or in a later month. I would prefer the latter just because it is easier. For example, although April (Confederate History Month) is provisionally taken, March is close and still open. I know we have appropriate texts, it would just mean deciding which one. (For the record, in the same spirit of non-avoidance, I would support featuring works such the Bible or Qur'an if nominated but none of ours are actually of the best quality at the moment.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment It is not just "the Bible that has been presented here. It is the work of one man, a man of no biases? -- Weld's version, The Bible Against Slavery. There were many ministers on both sides of America's "Civil War" (it was not a "Civil War") aka "WBTS", "Lincoln's Invasion", &c., &c. that preached "the Bible" and yet they preached opposing viewpoints. It is good that slavery was eradicated out of both the North (which owned slaves and owned the ships that brought slaves from Africa to the North and South) and the south which had slaves. Black History Month will cover that issue many times over. —William Maury Morris IITalk 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't initially proposing Weld's work; it merely reminded me of January's anniversary. But I wouldn't be against including it in a rotation of texts—to include the Proclamation. Totally up to y'all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Comment While I believe too few in the north understand people of the South who had families and friends killed, maimed like our soldiers of today, but who also had their homes burned, so much destroyed and people left starving and because I know some of that history including my own families and their friends, I am willing to support your suggestions and especially since you are polite and using good manners. I just had to state some things I know about and feel strongly about. I was in the group, Sons of the Confederacy, am a descendant of an American Revolutionary War veteran and my wife a member of the UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) and the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution). We had families, lots of kin and collateral kin and their friends, many of whom did not want the Union split but War came anyhow. What would you do. What would your husband do? Men in the south had to, without choice, march off to the front lines and face horrors and death for the sake of *trying* to *protect* all that was sacred to them even if they were to be maimed, to suffer unknown horrors -- all for the sake of their family and homes. POWs suffered horribly in the south as well as the north. The south ran out of food and could not feed their own armies much less feed northern pows well whereas the north had plenty of food but gave pow southerners nearly nothing to eat and survive on. It was Lincoln, Stanton, and Grant that caused the horrible conditions of all pows, north and south. It was intentional and Grant wrote about it. His orders were to stop all pow exchanges and thus both northern soldiers and southern soldiers, as prisoners of war suffered horrors and often died in prisoner of war camps. The south wanted the opposite and I know the reasons. Espy Diehl was one such Northern POW in "Andersonville" POW camp. His tombstone is there above his remains at this very moment. My previous wife "Jody" was born "in the land of Lincoln", Illinois and strongly pro-north about that war until she learned from the very book she purchased for me that Grant had stopped all POW exchanges. She has always learned a northern viewpoint and had not considered a southern viewpoint. She changed her thinking when she read about Grant stopping all prisoner of war exchanges. Her ancestor, Espy Diehl, in Andersonville would have lived had it not been for Grant stopping all POW exchanges. He would have lived and would be out of the military because his time was up as it was for many others in southern pow camps. Grant knew those men would just go home. He also knew Southern POWS would have to fight again for the same reasons they had joined the armies of the south. Grant would have to re-fight freed southerners while freed northerners were free of the army and could go home. Grant did not want that. A man fighting for his home and family back home will fight to the death. Old men and young boys did the same in the south because the men were in prisoners up north. The North invaded the South and continued with destruction -- a mere spelling of a word -- "destruction" but learn of what that meant and that word becomes truly defined. Even the Northerners wanted Grant removed because Grant would send thousands of men into battle knowing many would die but also many southerners would die in that same battle. Grant knew the north could easily supply more men and that the south could not due to population growth and immigration into the north before that war. The Northerners called Grant "a Butcher!" Lincoln told them, "I need this man, he fights" and so the war continued. At Cold Harbor General U S Grant lost thousands of men in a very short while against Lee's men. Yet Grant heavily out-numbered General Robert Edward Lee's men. By the way, U S Grant sounds good doesn't it -- also "Uncle Sam Grant" and "Unconditional Surrender" Grant. He was born as Hiram Ulysses Grant - "HUG" His name was changed when he went to West Point and he never corrected it. Simpson was his mother's maiden name and he held on to U S Grant. ~~ Whatever, I am remembering and writing too much on this and partly because of strong feelings about that war, the invasion and the reasons of it all and how it, that war and all associated with it including reconstruction in the south under bayonet rule for 12 years....just imagine this happening to you and your own families if anyone can even come near to "imagine" that well. Espy Diehl, probably never saw himself as an invader of the South and for his sake I hope that he didn't, but he died of starvation and his mortal remains are at Andersonville with others even now and our beloved government, the USA government, made that specific POW camp in the South a National Landmark and Cemetery for all soldiers while most POW camps in the north were demolished. One last statement on this hasty history--you will get your desire for the work/s you suggest. I know this as a Fact. I am not guessing. I am basing this statement on experience. I hold none of my statements against anyone here in any way. I have shared what I know of some history. (Not proofread) —William Maury Morris IITalk 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Proclamation 95

A formal nomination for Proclamation 95, the "Emancipation Proclamation" issued in January 1863. January 2013 is the 150th anniversary of this historically important text. Proclamation 93, the other Emancipation Proclamation, is both not eligible (as it is second-hand) and has already had its 150th anniversary (almost two weeks ago at time of writing). I don't believe this proclamation is itself too divisive compared to other material on or from the civil war. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for February 2013 for the 173rd(?) anniversary of the founding of New Zealand. It's also coincidently appropriate to feature travel writing just after the launch of Wikivoyage. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

John Carne Bidwill was one of the first white men to penetrate into the centre of the North Island of New Zealand. This account of his travels includes a description of the first ever climb of w:Mt Tongariro. Although Bidwill was primarily a botanist, in this book he discusses philology, geology and anthropology of the pre-colonisation Maori. One of the interesting facts is the use of tobacco as currency by Bidwill and one wonders if this might be related to the very smoking rates among NZ Maori today. February would be an ideal month for featuring this work given that February 6 is the anniversary of the founding of the nation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NB: Moved from the 2012 archive. Displaced from February 2013 and reinserted as March 2013's featured text.

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for January 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Came across this work today, and the art work is excellent. I have been through and done a tidy up, and it looks like a suitable candidate for Featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

  • It is annotated, so that should separated or disposed of.
  • The images should honour the user preference, for those with limited access.
  • The illustrator needs an author page and an article at the other place if notable; so does the author, if only to provide the bio and biblio data with citations. The articles would also go some way toward establishing the importance of the text, or at least its creators (if properly referenced). CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
ok, I don't know how to do any of that stuff (in fact I don't understand what is meant), so I guess this will not become a featured text candidate. I am realizing that there is less and less I can do on this site. Thanks anyway. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Provisionally Support - need more time to review the work in detail but it looks sharp. With respect to Cyg's points
    1. Annotations: I disagree, the footnotes appear to be from the original; the wikilinks, well, this is a wiki
    2. the images: that's a minor issue and easily fixed but I'm not the one to explain it, images are a pain for me and I don't see this issue as particularly important
    3. author pages, yes, click the red link for the illustrator and fill in all the details you can then make sure both the author and illustrator's author space pages link to en.wp if possible but I don't think we should determine our featured texts by whether wikipedia has an article. If you have information sufficient to create one, great, otherwise, just create the illustrator page.
    --Doug.(talk contribs) 19:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know it's been validated, but I've gone through the first few pages and found text that was missing. Think the rest needs to be verified before anything else. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Can you give an example of "missing text". CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
For you: illustration name, "CHAP. and its column, "Missing page" to "To face page", and some other formatting on prior pages like {{smallcaps}} and breaks. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The third bit of missing text, "missing page" turns out to be a user annotation, and is, unfortunately, quite correct. The plate facing page 16 is missing and I can't find an alternative source :( CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Found it here. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I have extracted the image, I will insert it into the appropriate point and re-align the pages. The page realignment will take a few minutes, {{inuse}} is on the index page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, just needs a validation on the new image's page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 00:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment With regard to the author, I had done a couple of hours research on her last night, the issue is that there is nothing definitive, so it will be a scant page at this time, and I was leaving it until I could get a little more data. There is indicative stuff, but nothing absolute, though I think that she is the daughter commented upon at w:Richard Mullock#Personal history. There are a couple of Dorothy Mullocks at that time, and just a little separation to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - personally, I find the wikilinks somewhat excessive and would like to see them trimmed down. However, there is no guideline, so this does not prevent me from supporting. Willing to discuss annotations outside of this candidacy, and how we can reach some kind of consensus at Wikisource:Annotations/types. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I added my two cents on the types page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The wikilinks needed to be re-examined with a focus on the frequency of linking to a particular target rather than the link seen on the WS side. I don't find them inherently excessive, but I noticed some proper nouns linked more than once and for example w:Swan Lake was the target of three links in the same chapter.--BirgitteSB 01:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I've made a few corrections (some extra line breaks were causing dashed boxes to appear), otherwise the text looks good. I think the problems mentioned above have been resolved (or aren't problems to begin with). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Beautiful artwork, well formatted document. -- Cirt (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but I recommend it be saved for sometime in 2013, if at all possible, since that would be the 100th anniversary of its publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for April 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

"One of the most important texts of early Zionism" according to Wikipedia. A non-fiction work (a lot of current nominations are fiction). The text has been validated from DjVu. The book, author and associated concepts all have articles on Wikipedia. The last featured texts that could be called a political or idealogical text, such as this one, was in January 2011; September 2011 could also be called similar, albeit a historical document related to an ideology rather than a manifesto-like text. NB: It's too late to match Israeli Independence Day in 2012, the most appropriate calendar event I can think of (which is in April) unless this is kept for a year (in 2013 it is also in April). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for May 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a triumph of formatting and a commendable effort by Adam, Mazzei, MODCHK and Kathleen (sorry if I missed anyone else), with great short stories by H.G. Wells, Jules Verne and more. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Support, I totally agree. Can we have two featured texts for the month of September and if not then why not? Or would this be for early October? Anything AdamBMorgan, H. G. Wells, and Jules Verne do is always going to turn out good. I don't know of anyone who could honestly deny that. The main thing is not to have a repeated featured text in any given month or none for a new month. We have lots of good texts on Wikisource like the above and more. Why cannot we have two featured texts or even three if we have them? I think one per month isn't enough. Theornamentalist, your works are always good, even those in Spanish, so why don't you have one presented as a featured text? Kindest regards to you superb workers, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 07:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikisource doesn't seem to move at the kind of pace (yet) where more than one text per month is practical. Reserving texts for later months helps prevent gaps in the schedule. Hopefully we can improve on this in the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, there are a fair number of "errors" in the DJVU file image text which may actually be in the original document, but I suspect (because they look more like OCR errors than typos) are possibly an artifact of the DJVU conversion/compression process.--T. Mazzei (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The initials are at least easy to add (and now done). There may be some DjVu based errors. It should be possible to check them against the other file types at Internet Archive if such a thing is suspected. Maybe HTML comments can be added if and where this occurs. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for June 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a well-illustrated guide to performance of magic tricks and illusions. Many of the illusions contained in here are still performed today. Ellis Stanyon was a noted illusionist and magic dealer based in London in the early 1900's. He developed many new sleight of hand tricks throughout his professional career and was greatly esteemed in the profession. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

We're looking at a Featured Text, not a Featured Book. The 12 pages of advertisements are not part of the text and the pages are not in the Mainspace. Also, the current Featured Text has adverts, which have not been validated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, the adverts in the current FT have been validated. The problem I have with this nomination is that the adverts aren't even created yet, let alone proofread or validated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So they are. They weren't when I last looked. Why do you want the adverts done? They are not part of the work. The description of a completed work (status done) is "Done—All pages of the work proper are validated". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
By Wikisource custom (if not policy) adverts are optional, hence the wording "the work proper" in the status. They can be included or they can be ignored. Personally, I like including adverts as I find them interesting. That shouldn't be a road block for texts where the proofreader(s) do(es) not share my preferences, however. Featured texts represent Wikisource and its culture, which includes the optional status of adverts. Of course, if you would like to get the adverts validated and transcluded: that's fine too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Those 2 "adverts" were very simple to do. The 2nd one of them is just an image of an image. It is not typed out. The 1st of them I typed out for several reasons. One of the reasons was that the book, Mexico as it was and is, looked so complete except for the advertisements being left undone. Beeswaxcandle has done a fantastic job in editing out mistakes in that book and adding in tables. All work came to a point to where the book itself was beautiful due to myself and others working together on it. It just did not look finished, or good enough by leaving two advertisements showing as untouched. Only a true pro like AdamBMorgan would have tackled that 2nd image as wiki-coded text. So, another person just placed an image of the original book image there. In this, it seems all 666 ads of a book can be simply images of images. There was only the one (1) image that was transcribed and I wanted to give that a try and did. I did not follow any policy about doing that ad other than I personally wanted the book to look totally complete because those of us who worked on it had done (in my thinking) such a beautiful work and without any arguments throughout that entire book which is yet another form of beauty.—William Maury Morris IITalk 15:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Adverts are now proofread, only thing missing is the image on the first advert page (and validation)--T. Mazzei (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
If we are worried about redlinks from the header files, then remove them. If we have them in the index page, then ignore them. I do not see the failure to validate adverts should stop a text from being FT; showing the links to the blank pages from headers is a different matter. — billinghurst sDrewth

NB: This featured text was initially featured in June 2013 but it was displaced by one month to allow Laura Secord: A Study in Canadian Patriotism to be featured on the 200th anniversary. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected or July 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Australians are the stars at irony, in that we celebrate Burke & Wills and their intrepidly (stupid) expedition across Australia. Anyway, 150 years ago this year rescue missions were sent and this work sets out the trials and tribulations of the party as they traversed the continent and the different search parties did what B&W did not AND in both directions (more irony). Anyway, 2013 is the 150 years since the release of the work, and it shows the absolute perils of outback Australia and the expeditioners at work. Has some nice lithographic images. I submit the work for your consideration and hope that we can find it a berth in 2013 in a little celebration. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, especially as there be alligators. Moondyne (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — I greatly enjoy reading about expeditions and I like illustrations to the Max. I like the idea Billinghurst presents in that this book is also a "little celebration" but I disagree that it was "stupid". I do detest "alligators", (sharks and barracuda I have had to deal with when in the USN) and prefer they all would be killed. They ruin a good swimming place including the ocean and even the beaches of Key West Florida where I could have easily been killed by barracuda. But the alligator image is excellent -- see the men tremble in horror when bathing. Know some of that feeling of horror and the image becomes even more real, otherwise it is just a lithograph -- like some sort of fantasy. The men were very brave on that expedition. After all, it was only a 2,000 mile trek from point A to point B of uncharted territory. —Maury (talk) 16:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

NB: This featured text was delayed by one month to allow Laura Secord: A Study in Canadian Patriotism to be featured on the 200th anniversary. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for September 2013 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The Yellow Wall Paper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is "an important early work of American feminist literature" first published in 1892 in The New England Magazine and republished as a stand alone work in 1899 and reprinted in 1901 (we have the 1901 printing). Dealing with the medical profession's oppression of women in the 19th C., the work has been the subject of multiple films (including an episode of the The Twilight Zone, paintings, film, and plays. There are Wikipedia articles about both the author and the book (as well as some of the related works), additionally, there are two audio recordings of the work on commons, one of which is linked from the work here.

Prior to 27 April 2013, the work existed in unsupported text on Wikisource that had been imported from Project Gutenberg; however, that work contained numerous errors including a missing line. On 27 April, as part of the GLAM-Wiki Boot Camp, this work was presented to a group of Wikipedians, most of whom had no or negligible prior experience with Wikisource. The group was provided with scans uploaded to Commons and was walked through the process of setting up the index and then various editors transcribed pages of the work then and over the course of the following week. This was referenced in the Signpost on Wikipedia and spurred a discussion with Asaf Bartof over the value of Wikisource compared to Project Gutenberg or raw scans. The work was substantially complete on 4 May and was transcluded to main space replacing the PG text. On 6 May, the work was added to the New Texts section of the main page.

This work is important historically and it is important to Wikisource. The text is clean, the header contains appropriate external links, and the formatting is in accordance with the Wikisource Style Guide--Doug.(talk contribs) 14:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Featured for June 2013 to match anniversary (previous FT's displaced by one month). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A short, early text on Laura Secord, heroine to Canadians of the War of 1812. After the Americans invaded the Niagara Peninsula in 1813, they planned further invasions into Upper Canada; Secord overheard their plans, and stole away on 23 June to British-controlled territories to warn them. The British won against the invading Americans at the Batttle of Beaver Dams the next day.

The 200th anniversary of her walk is coming up next month; her Wikipedia article was recently made a Featured Article, and will likely be on the Main Page on the date of the anniversary. The text is proofread, well-formatted, illustrated, and full of wikilinks. Curly Turkey (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support: It appears to be a good quality work, meeting all requirements and an anniversary is always nice. While "full of wikilinks" might be a problem, they all appear to be neutral links, mostly from personal names to Wikipedia biographies, which is OK under the recent annotation debate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I think the em-dashes should have the excess padding removed in order to conform to the original, these appear to be unpadded in the original but {{}} would work fine too. I recently had an issue with this in the work above; however, I can't see that the style guide says anything about the amount of padding. Additionally, some could complain at the lack of a clean version. Personally, I don't see that as an issue and the only wikilink I think may stretch the Style Guide is the "revolutionary war" link on page 2, I don't think that's especially "difficult to understand". Finally, I'm not sure that the images couldn't be improved but that's not my skill set so it's just a suggestion.--Doug.(talk contribs) 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Do Not Support - Although I do like chocolate, Laura Ingersoll-Secord was a treacherous woman living in one of the British colonies who went against her own father (and perhaps he was killed because of her along with other American patriots). He too was an "American patriot" according to that wikipedia article, from Massachusetts just as other American patriots who were seeking freedom from British Royalty and their long-time wrongs in those days. Americans were like cattle for the taking and they were taken from the plow to far away combat for England to conquer even more places (India &c, &c, &c, &c) So how many American patriots died for their families and friends freedoms against the wrongs of England. How many got killed because of her walk? How do we know she "walked twenty miles"? Genl. Washington's soldiers walked further than twenty miles and suffered terrible trials right down to winters with no shoes leaving bloody footprints in the snow from "walking"? Perhaps she "hitched a ride"—we do not, in fact, "know". "Laura lived a very long time, dying at the age of 93. In her lifetime the government never formally recognized her singular feat of bravery, and much controversy still envelopes her legacy." It is a supposition. If she is to be honored then at least she should be known by her real name "Laura Ingersoll-Secord" throughout history instead of by a chocolate company with their own concocted image of a youthful lady. Laura Ingersoll-Secord, by her deeds, was supporting white slavery for England against American colonies.
I agree with Doug on the dashes although I am not sure what to make of the following other than a mistake => —a <= In reference to the images I like them colored for a change. I am considering the same with a book I am working on. (updated text) —Maury (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, is the inherent merit of a text relevant to this discussion? Maybe it is. Where do we draw the lines though between literary merit, historical importance, quality of the underlying text, and other factors. I do think we need to consider whether a work is important, particularly globally, and we should give preference to works of literature and works that are important historically in their own right (say the Declaration of Independence), something we have not necessarily done in the past; but your argument seems to suggest that we shouldn't feature this work because the subject was a traitor and a scoundrel; by that argument we could eliminate most vast amounts of writing, certainly most works of the Nazi's would be doomed, as well as most works of the antebellum south, such as Index:The duties of masters and slaves respectively (1845).djvu; there are many other examples of works that are of good to high quality but either represent immorality or oppression or are downright evil, another example that I think could one day be worthy on an FT but which is somewhere between wrong and evil: Index:The International Jew - Volume 1.djvu. I'm not opposed to the idea that the nominated work is less important than suggested and shouldn't rate an FT but I think I would oppose the idea that the work is "wrong". I'm not particularly concerned about the anniversary coming up and much more concerned with whether the work is well transcribed and formatted.--Doug.(talk contribs) 23:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe I've obliterated the padding around the emdashes (including the => —a <=); I didn't bother with {{}} as the original seems to have the emdashes flush against the surrounding text. I've no preference on the images—they are as they are because I have no confidence in my image-manipulating abilities. Curly Turkey (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
further discussion by Maury and Doug re Jews, slavery, declaration of independence, and the fact that there are embellished texts and a comment by Curley Turkey that this isn't one of them
A hero to one person or group of people can be the opposite to another person or group. I dislike the woman's story in this particular book. Her story is not established as truthful history and is apparently heavily debated (see wikipedia article). One author added a cow to her story -- embellishment. She herself told different stories. As for Jews, I tend to like them. They gave us (me) our religion. In deeds there is right and wrong and mankind (inc. authors and editors) should endeavor to separate the both of those if possible. In reference to slavery, it existed in all 13 American Colonies, black people and white people and the North attempted slavery with the red man (which didn't work so they were sold to the West Indies) and all thanks to the British Empire. Slavery in the south was wrong. Slavery anywhere is wrong. Because of myth and misconceptions I believe the book should not be a "featured text". Regardless, I am the person who corrected those discolored images in the book so it will look better. Doug, you mention the Declaration of Independence. Well, take a look at what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the English king in his day before that document was revised by Adams and Franklin. Jefferson struck out slavery and gave the English H** and rightly so. Had Jefferson's version passed there would have been no more slavery in the USA from England -- and Northern shipping. Slavery was an unfortunate business of supply and demand. The North of the (later) USA as well as England were on the Demand side of cotton. The South was on the supply side of cotton. When the American Civil War came and the South held back on "King Cotton" then England's mills layed off workers and British cities (i.e. Lancaster) became filled with desperate people with no jobs because there was no cotton (no supply)from the South of the USA. Further, throughout the American Civil War when situations were right the North exchanged Southern prisoners for cotton (still being on the demand side of slavery which was created by the Northern part of the USA and again, "England") Lincoln and Grant had pow exchanges stopped. Northern pows and Southern pows alike suffered and died. Southerners would have went home and if able to defend they would do so again. Northern pows who had signed up for 90 days would have long ago been freed and would go home and likely stayed home.

When I hear or read of wrongs such as slavery I look to how it came to be and grew and continued. The same with the 13 American colonies and the injustices by the British Empire which American Patriots (Sons of Liberty) fought against and lost their life over in seeking freedom from the British empire. The British Empire has many colonies and lived off slavery and other forms of forced labor. Mahatma Gandhi of British ruled India was one of the more recent examples of mankind struggling against the British Empire and its many forms of slavery. The seven provinces of Prussia (Hessians) also suffered from the same British Empire. Empires thrive off the sorrows of other people forced against their will--without freedoms. People struggle, often in combat, and many die from want of freedoms the USA now has. Yes, I can see where that woman can be a heroine for "British America" even though it be in myth. I simply do not think that book, as written, shows the darker side of the human species. The book whitewashes over truths in history. Now we could, in we really wanted, work only on the wrong side of truth and history or all about the better nature of people and nations -- either way. I know works here should be balanced but I also know I have the right to say I dislike that particular book. Still, and again, I worked and removed the discoloration of images so it looks better. I didn't know I would get into a lengthy conversation about it and I have no hatred or any such thing about the book. I prefer truths when we can find them and in that I do not see it as a Featured Text. I presently retain my passing thoughts and solid beliefs unless they can be disproved at which time I can change my beliefs. I am as flexible as anyone here in my opinion because. I am an open-minded person and always willing to change my thoughts but are all others here? I have met many in my life who are not open-minded when facts have been stated. Some will not or can not think beyond what one book states or what their social norms--their society tells them by books and memorials in history as to what is exact history and not to believe different. Kind regards to everyone here. BTW, I never use the expression "argument" lest it be misunderstood. I use the terms discussion and/or debate depending upon the subject. What I have written is a "reply" and a "discussion" in relation to a "Featured Text". —Maury (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's strange that the criticism focuses so much on slavery, as slavery in Canada was always a fringe endeavour; the w:Act Against Slavery of 1793 was an early attempt to curtail it, not long after Upper Canada was first colonized, and by the outbreak of the War of 1812 it was greatly moreso fringe (and abolished outright in 1833). The book under discussion never touches on slavery, and I've run across no evidence that the Secords or Ingersolls partook in it. The criticism seems to be aimed at the British Empire as a whole rather than anything in particular about the book. It seems to be a criticism condemning the whole of literature that paints the British in a positive light. Those of us who are not from the United States have trouble comprehending this black-and-white "US" vs. "them" interpretation of history.
The text we are discussing isn't one of the texts known to have "embellishments" such as the cow. That Secord walked her walk on the date given is well established, and is not one of the things about her story that is debated. If she was considered a traitor to anyone but Mr William Maury Morris II, this is the first I've heard of it; even the people of Great Barrington, Massachusetts, have given her credit. Personally, I think her importance is overblown, but I don't see that as having anything to do with the quality of proofreading on this text. I don't think there's a text that exists that can't been seen in a negative light from some angle, so I think the politics would have to be especially egregious to have any bearing whatsoever on deciding whether or not a text should be Featured. Curly Turkey (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know about slavery in Canada. It is true that I am looking (since it was brought up) at the whole of the British Empire and how it was involved in several kinds of slavery including the American "Colonials". The British Empire fought one war against the now USA and tried a 2nd time in the "War of 1812" (yet the USA helped save England in WW1 ("LaFayette, we are here!") and did save England in WW2 and partly because she is our "mother nation" Remember La Fayette (lafayette). He also fought the "Bloody British."

Other statements above to a great extent were elicited by me from things Doug mentioned. I tried to cover each of his extra points mentioned including the "Declaration of Independence" from England's king; slavery in the south of the USA, et cetera. This discussion is not about us of today but rather of the long-ago past and wars. 13 colonies struggled for Independence against the British Empire, a seemingly impossible feat but American patriots, with the help of others, gained a nation of many freedoms from a Tyrant King who had rule over many places and people and that includes British Canada fighting American "Sons of Liberty".

Now, one point about "Secord" and I am through with this since the book will be a featured text regardless of what I think. I will simply quote part of the article on Secord from WikiPedia. "The story of Laura Secord has taken on mythological overtones in Canada; there are MANY EMBELLISHED VERSIONS of the tale. Secord has been the subject of books, poetry, and plays. Since her death, Canada has bestowed honours on her such as schools named after her, monuments, a museum, a memorial stamp, and a statue at the Valiants Memorial in the Canadian capital."

I next place the following here so all can see and I have stated all I want to state over that book which will, without one doubt on my part, will become a featured text. I grew up within a very short "walking" distance of this man's home and his university.

I place this here only for a clarification of my own long-held thoughts regarding "British Canada" and the "British Empire" vs 13 colonies of long-ago during their wars against one another. Read about why I think as I do about warning the British against the 13 colonies. Read about that King of England and think of the atrocities beyond this document including slavery of men and his trying to keep them under the yoke of no freedoms and not only in the 13 colonies but throughout many nations of the World. Has the "British Empire" defeated the 13 American colonies we here in the USA may not have our freedoms fought for ever so hard on battlefields including those of today. I myself will say no more. There is no anger on my part but I do detest slavery in all its forms over all people of this world. Farewell and Godspeed, —Maury (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776)

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson

(Handwritten notes by Jefferson and Adams bolded.)

A Declaration by the Representatives of United States of America, in General Congress Assembled

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the equal and independent station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change

We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable selfevident, that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal creation they derive in rights inherent and inalienables, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes: and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period, and pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to subject reduce them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge their former systems of government. the history of his present majesty is a history of unremitting injuries and usurpations, among which no fact stands single or solitary to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest, all of which have in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. to prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world, for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has neglected utterly to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people unless those people would relinquish the right of representation [in the legislature], a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only:

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

[he has dissolved]he has refused for a long space of time, to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within:

he has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands:

he has suffered the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these colonies, refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers:

he has made our judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount of their salaries.

he has erected a multitude of new offices by a self-assumed power, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

he has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies and ships of war:

he has affected to render the military, independent of and superior to civil power:

he has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their pretended acts of legislation, for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders [which] they should commit on the inhabitants of these states; for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

for imposing taxes on us without our consent;

for depriving us of the benefits of trial by jury;

for transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

for taking away our charters, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

for suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever;

he has abdicated government here, withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his alegiance and protection;

he has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people:

he is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy unworthy the head of a civilized nation:

he has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions of existence:

he has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens with the allurements of forfeiture and confiscation of our property:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemispere, or to incure miserable death in their transportation hither. this piratical warfare, the opprobium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce determining to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

in every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. a prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a people who mean to be free. future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man, adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, on so many acts of tyranny without a mask, over a people fostered and fixed in principles of liberty.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. we have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over these our states. we have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expence of our own blood and treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituing indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league and amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and we appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which were likely to interrupt our correspondence and connections. they too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have by their free election re-established them in power. at this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch and foreign mercenaries to invade and deluge us in blood. these facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. we might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur and of freedom it seems is below their dignity. be it so, since they will have it: the road to [glory and] happiness and to glory is open to us too; we will climb it apart from them in a separate state and acquiesce in the necessity which denounces pronounces our everlasting Adieu! eternal separation!

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled do , in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce the allegiance and subjection to the kinds of Great Britain and all others who may herafter claim by, through, or under them; we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, and that as free and independent states they shall herafter have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

—Maury (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I think we are far afield and the above details (verbatim) of a particular text seem most irrelevant to me. To try to take us back to the point, the works mentioned were pointed to because they are full of legends, falsities and outright fabrications. I don't see how we can gauge whether a work should be featured based on whether it is actually truthful or honors a "good" person; if those are our criteria, then this is far too subjective a process to be honorable. If you simply do not like the work yourself, I respect that but it doesn't require a dissertation and I'm just wondering whether our personal likes or dislikes should be the reasons for our votes. Some works I like but they are not particularly good, some works are good but I do not particularly like them, some works are neither good nor do I like them but they are well transcribed. Historically, we have picked many works that have some marginal importance but are neither particularly good nor likable they are merely well transcribed and formatted. Some of them probably shouldn't have made it but once we've featured them it's not really possible to withdraw that honor.--Doug.(talk contribs) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for December. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I know it's a little way off yet but Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray would be a good featured text for December. Thackeray died in December 1863, making this December the 150th anniversary of his death. On top of that, Vanity Fair was a PotM earlier in the year. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for November. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This text has finally been completed. Although we have had two other translations of Hammurabi's Code on the English Wikisource, this translation supersedes them in three points. (1) This translation is sourced; the other two have no source file. (2) This is the first translation of the Code made into English, and only the third to be done following the Code's discovery by modern archaeologists. (3) The publication of this translation is accompanied by detailed photographs of the entire original Akkadian text of the Code. Images of this Akkadian text previously did not exist on Commons. They are large image files that, when magnified, display readable source script of the original language. The English Wikisource is currently the only wiki to make use of these image files, and I think we should show off. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for October along with The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This text was first completed in 2006 by Stuartkonen, but the scanned copy was only uploaded and validated this year, in June to be precise. It is Wilde's first short story, and so is fairly well-known. Includes various full-page images and some other, smaller illustrations. This might be a good featured text for November, as Wilde died on November 30, 1900. Or maybe October, for Halloween. —Clockery Fairfield (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

*  Support October and before Halloween + perhaps add "Sleepy Hollow" —Maury (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the original was "in color" or black and white? The one that shows color may have been colored and therefore the cover could be under copyright. Authors do this with covers and the also change the Preface and place copyright on entire old book. I understand the original text would not be copyrighted. In any case do you all want the B/W image that I can repair or the Color image? I can correct images including color images. Is someone here going to get either of the images and download then upload either image? —Maury (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The ABE listings indicate that the color cover appears on the 1906 edition, which is the edition we have. So the "original" (1906 edition) had a color cover. I suspect that our source scan was done in black-and-white rather than color. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't mind working with that color image to get it on en.WS but what "source" shall I state it comes from? Does anyone here prefer anything specific like .png, .jpg, or whatever other format? What size in pixels is desired or should I simply upload a large enough image that can be made smaller by code? I ask this only because some are very particular whereas I am not so particular unless I need to be. Typically, I use .jpg images on WS. —Maury (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Commons prefers JPG for color photographs. The "source" can be given as a URL and name of the site from which the image was taken, but there can be issues with using someone else's photograph. I'm not clear whether that would be at issue in this instance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded the color cover, and as the whole book and its images are currently on WS, I've uploaded it over the previous file. Please revert if there are any issues.
On a related topic, per Maury, I've finished proofreading Sleepy Hollow. Any takers? —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Sleepy Hollow has now been validated. I'm nominating it below. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for October along with The Canterville Ghost. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

This short story was already here on Wikisource, but, on Maury's suggestion above, a scanned copy from 1864 (printed individually) was proofread in August and validated in September. It might be a good featured text for October (Halloween), along with The Canterville Ghost, and any others if they are completed in time. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

 Comment I know there are no votes for this one yet but I'm including it as part of the Halloween package with The Canterville Ghost (from which this grew). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Passed