Index talk:The Virginia Housewife or, Methodical Cook, Mary Randolph, 1836.djvu
Hi! I proofread pretty much all of the body text and marked it proofread. From having looked around, I do things a little weirdly for WS, but I tried to keep the weirdness machine-processable (mostly with existing scripts) while maximizing the proof-ability. I was, however, not terribly concerned with formatting things to match the look and feel of the print; I strongly feel that interferes with checking the text... and I also just didn’t feel up to the task. So, I chose “proofread” on the body text because it is not “not proofread” and I wanted to leave open the option of marking it “verified” if the verifier goes ham on it, but I think it is only fair to suggest it could involve more than just verifying. Some of the front matter is marked “not proofread” because the formatting matters a lot more and I didn’t do it, but it is still much cleaner than the OCR. I hope that adequately clarifies the present state of this text. Also: In truth, I am not sure if this one differs substantially from the 1860 printing used by PGDP. Giving it a once-over, it does appear that effort made some editorial decisions which I didn’t match, so there’s at least that. -BRPXQZME (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BRPXQZME: Thanks for taking up the project! I uploaded it in hopes that someone might find an interest. Matching original formatting as closely as possible is encouraged. At the point I became aware of your "sectioned" approach, you had already done much proofreading; so I chose to let you continue uninterrupted. Either I, or someone else, may eventually validate pages making the minor changes from sections to matching original text. Thanks again! Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, a lesson learned. In hindsight, there are books that have been passably transclude-stitched together at only “proofread” and I’m comfortable with the idea of more pairs of eyeballs checking fewer errors, so I’ll be sure to leave this sort of condition at “not proofread” the next time insomn——inspiration strikes, as my inner judge had not considered things that way at a critical juncture. Fortunately, this book OCR’d relatively cleanly and didn’t have a structure more complex than section→recipe to get me into trouble. -BRPXQZME (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- @BRPXQZME: Contributors tend to improve their methods along with the text they proofread. No contributor should get into trouble with good faith edits. May you continue to be inspired here—and well rested :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, a lesson learned. In hindsight, there are books that have been passably transclude-stitched together at only “proofread” and I’m comfortable with the idea of more pairs of eyeballs checking fewer errors, so I’ll be sure to leave this sort of condition at “not proofread” the next time insomn——inspiration strikes, as my inner judge had not considered things that way at a critical juncture. Fortunately, this book OCR’d relatively cleanly and didn’t have a structure more complex than section→recipe to get me into trouble. -BRPXQZME (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)