Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2014

Featured

The Corsair (Byron, 1814)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for January 2014

January 2014 is the bicentennial of the publication of this work.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected some formatting problems and broken links in this work. It should have a few more pairs of eyes check it over before we consider featuring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked over it, it looks pretty good. I support it as Jan '14 FTC.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Clipper Ship Era

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for February 2014

I've been meaning to nominate this for a little while. This "biography" of some of the greatest ships of the 19th C. makes interesting reading. I found the account of some of the races between rival ships to reach California from Sandy Hook or London from Canton particularly interesting. The idea of being 100 days at sea without stopping and making running repairs to masts and rigging is a challenging one to our ideas of modern travel. The images (mostly portraits of the ships or their masters) are mostly crisp and clear. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It looks good and meets all the technical requirements. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet but the subject is interesting. The frontispiece appears to be missing but that shouldn't undermine the text. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I have read it all and several people worked on that book doing the technical requirements. The book looks good and is unusual. It is a book of true history, a history never to be lived again. —Maury (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support---Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - meets the criteria. Moondyne (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support -- A good book, overall. One query, though--are the links to the Page: namespace on the list of illustrations required? They could be linked to the main namespace itself, using anchors. —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Romanes Lecture

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for May 2014

I am copying the following from the talk page:

All of the works except the text in French (1921) have been validated. Could this series as a whole be a candidate for Featured Text? If so, what would be required to bring it up to standard if it is not already? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Two of the lectures—The English National Character and Humanism in Education are validated, but are works within works that as a whole are not validated. The rest are fully validated stand-alone works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Just some added info: May 2014 marks the 120th anniversary of George Romanes' death. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this works as a nomination, it just depends on how this would work as a featured text. I can see three possibilities off-hand:

1. Feature the portal itself rather than any individual text.
2. Feature a small selection of the lectures, each individually linked from one static piece of text in the Featured Text template/main-page-box.
3. Use a rotating set of texts (like the past two Halloweens) to feature several lectures during the month.

Even with the last two, the portal could still be linked. I don't see problems with the 1921 lecture (not appropriate to English Wikisource anyway) nor the situation with "The English National Character" or "Humanism in Education". May would be a good time to feature these lectures. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I realize I'm biased in this vote as they were a large pet project of mine, but I support this as a featured text. I think linking to the portal would be probably best, with a general background about the Romanes Lectures, and then rotate through a few of the actual lectures throughout the month.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

enWP on 30 December for the Picture of the Day somehow managed it so that a different random illustration appeared whenever the Mainpage was loaded—and offered a link to "See another illustration". See w:Template:POTD/2013-12-30. We could do something similar. Oh, and support. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

 Support however you plan to do it. Everything considered, it seems a good plan, just requires a good way to present it. Both Beeswaxcandle's suggestion and Adam's third suggestion are good. It's the first time it's being done, but hey, everything has a beginning, doesn't it? :) I've reviewed the portal classification as well, in preparation for May. —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 09:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Association Football and How to Play It

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for March 2014. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

One of the PotM texts in December 2013 (that year was the 150th anniversary of the formation of the Football Association). It's a 1908 textbook by John Cameron, Player-manager of Tottenham Hotspur. We don't have much sporting material featured yet. As a bonus, it should help break up the relatively large number of fiction nominations (assuming they are successful). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 08:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Syn

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for July 2014. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 14:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

An adventure story by Russell Thorndike. It's the start of a series with some spin-off media, although this instalment might be the only part in the public domain. This was finished as part of the tenth anniversary contest. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Merged nomination: American edition of the 1915 adventure novel by Russell Thorndike. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879)

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for April 2014 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Daisy Miller: A Study was Henry James' breakthrough story, the story that made his name. It was first published in an English magazine in 1878, and promptly pirated into the American market by two different American serials. Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879) is the first book edition of this work, and the first authorized American edition of any form. James' revised the magazine text for publication here, making this one of the distinct authoritative texts for this story. Our transcription is fully validated, and based on a reasonably good scan. Hesperian 03:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Support —Maury (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) This was a very difficult work to get. It deserves our support beyond what Hesperian has written and worked on as well as by myself, Ineuw, and George Orwell III and the others who validated this work. Yes, it was hard to get and it is grand to read. Besides, Daisy Miller is very pretty. This book could have been lost to the world if not for the one copy on Gobble. It is far beyond a game of football which is an everyday thing and which perhaps none of us here ever play now. I call that game "Soccer". Daisy Miller will be a good read even if you are 60-100 years old.
•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Solomon7968 (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(Discussion between Clockery and Maury on the merits and demerits of football [which is highly irrelevant to this discussion!])

@Maury: re football--I still do! ;-) But never mind me, just teasing you.—Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 15:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)- @Hickory Dickory Clockery - I heard that! My friend, you're still in high school and you are getting kicked around with nothing to gain and retain in Soccer. Study both martial and marital arts instead and it will be of value to you all of your life. Swimming, tennis, and bicycling are always good. Besides, any woman like Miss Daisy Miller with you at your age is trouble -- (same @ my age too :0) —Maury (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC) @Maury: That was meant for you to hear. :-P I know I've nothing much to gain with football, but there's nothing much to lose either. ;-) On the other hand, neither martial nor marital arts hold my interest much at all, which is a right relief--the latter, anyway. I know absolutely nothing about martial arts, but I find that the tried-and-tested "hit, kick, bite" formula works for me (I've never tried the "bite" part of it, though). I do like swimming and bicycling (not much tennis here--only badminton and table tennis), but I'm more of a walker--and a football player. And of course, I'm Trouble with a capital T--even though Daisy Miller is older than me--and proud of it! }:-) —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 09:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC) @Hickory Dickory Dockery, there again is the man named Clockery. I say ole chum, Eh Gads! No Tennis? Is your island too short? I love tennis! I do agree that Tea is just capital! But we must not declare nor tary longer here for this area is off topic-ery. We must bide one another adieu, both of us, not one but both as in two. I saw Daisy Miller! Tick-tock. . . Adieu. —Maury (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for June 2014 —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

1866 edition of the 1865 children's novel by Lewis Carroll. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support, maybe for June.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus and Other Cretaceous Carnivorous Dinosaurs

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for August 2014. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 13:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Short but sweet, this text is the scientific paper that described and named Tyrannosaurus rex. It is therefore of significant scientific and cultural importance. Since there are relatively few scientific texts on Wikisource compared to literary and historical ones, it fills a void in the site's coverage of sources. The use of links to historical scientists, anatomical terms, geologic units, etc highlights the power of the Wikisource model better than other kinds of texts. Its ties to Wikipedia content will help bring in traffic and may foster inter-wiki dialogue. I think it will make a fine addition to Wikisource's library of featured texts. Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support: It meets the FT requirements, formal (validated scan, etc) and informal (interesting, significant, etc). We really don't have many academic papers in any condition and this would be the first to be featured. Plus I just like Tyrannosaurus rexes. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good text with images etc, and interesting too. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 17:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'd like to see the images cleaned up and optimized for loading. Right now they are very large png files that take a very, VERY long time to load. They are also very grainy and show as much of the paper texture as the illustration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I totally agree with EncycloPetey in that the images need to be cleaned. —Maury (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I am appalled at the carping tone of the last two comments. Kindly offer constructive criticism, or better yet give an example of a "cleaned-up" or "optimized" image per your inadequately-stated standards. I freely admit to being a useless graphic artist and so unfortunately am not likely to be of use; but if I received this level of "support" I would be inclined to be quite offended. For shame! AuFCL (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• • •  Comment In reference to _calling us out to put us down_ and specifically me, I marked "support" and then added that I agreed, and still do, with what EncycloPetey stated about "images". I do not see either his or my statement as "carping" a _person_. Be "appalled" and negative against people as much as you want. We gave honest statements on images and not people. Even now as I type this, I do not know who did that work. I only looked at the work and specifically the images - but not the editor. The comment was about images. I marked "support" because the work is good in my opinion and it is pleasing unusual. —Maury (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  (Sigh!) If you cannot figure out the difference between a personal attack and one upon and action then I am afraid there is no hope for you. For the record: this is an example of a personal attack. I hope you do not make a repeat lesson necessary. Also for the record, I stand by the original statement, but concede I could(should?) have worded it better. I will not pursue this conversation further in public forum. AuFCL (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  Amigo, let us drop it because we just have different views. I know what I felt. Please see the last message on my talk page if and only "if" you wish to have another viewpoint and a rule for what transpired. —Maury (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • @Abyssal, @EncycloPetey, @William Maury Morris II, @AuFCL: I've done some minor work on this image (brightness-contrast, removing spots, etc.); I'd appreciate it if anyone could improve on my work. Of course, you are free to revert if necessary... —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the good work, Clockery! Abyssal (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • And I see Beeswaxcandle has also cleaned it. :) —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've re-derived both images and run them through Irfan to clean-up the background. I'm not entirely happy with the skeleton image, but after an hour with a 1 pixel brush it's about as good as I can achieve. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, the images do now look clean and load much more quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm opposed. The scan is an excerpt. Per Wikisource:What Wikisource Includes#Excerpts, "Random or selected sections of a larger work, are generally not acceptable." The entire volume should be uploaded, and this article should be placed in its context at Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History/Volume 21/Tyrannosaurus and Other Cretaceous Carnivorous Dinosaurs. This is certainly a very interesting and important work, and I honour Abyssal's efforts on it; but as an excerpt, I don't think meets our featured text standards. Hesperian 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not an excerpt from the paper, though. The work being nominated is actually complete. It seems unreasonable to expect users to go through hundreds of pages of unrelated publications just to get one individual paper recognized. Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't expect you to proof the entire volume; that would indeed be unreasonable. I just think it isn't best practice to extract a few pages from a volume; and our featured texts surely should be examples of best practice. Hesperian 14:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Given that the papers in any given journal are unrelated to eachother I don't think we necessarily gain much by lumping them together when it's only by coincidence that they all ended up published together. It's not like I took an isolated chapter from a book or something, which I agree would definitely qualify as substandard practice. Abyssal (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have standalone papers already and I don't think it's really necessary to do this (as the paper is a complete unit in itself). However, if we do go that way, the complete volume is here (there is also this scan, which is better quality, but the paper we want appears to be missing). It wouldn't be hard to transfer that to Commons and move the existing pages over. A slightly harder task would involve reconstructing the voume from the Digital Library of the American Museum of Natural History, which appears to have better quality scans than Google, or doing some mix-and-match of all of these.- AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The images are properly done now. Thank you one and all who worked on the text and the images for the sake of a better en.wikisource —Maury (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support. Thanks for the cleaner images. I disagree with Hesperian about calling this an "excerpt". The paper is a complete work that happens to appear in a collected and edited volume. That's how scientific papers are done. It would be downright weird to feature an entire volume of a periodical, unless the volume was the first of an important one, was a themed issue, or contained multiple notable items (we've done this, but only in those exceptional circumstances). If it is felt that this paper is too short to feature for a month, then perhaps we could feature several papers on paleontology in the same way we've done for shorter works at Halloween. Showing that we have collected some key older works on palentology could be a big boost to our image. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

 Comment One single article might be OK as featured text. But we should anyhow put articles in the right context. In the last weeks several independent articles have been uploaded separately (e.g. from the American Journal of Science). We might as well upload one single file for the whole volume instead of single articles and start from there instead of scatter the work around and do (sooner o later) the clean-up and merging afterwards.--Mpaa (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for October 2014.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed" is an article by the late Adrianne Wadewitz published by the London School of Ecnonomics. The document is licensed as free-use by the license Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-SA-3.0). This document has been discussed on thousands of other webpages lately in the context of discussion about the meta:Gender gap. Thank you for your consideration for featured status. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Please check the Featured Text criteria: "The work must be completely proofread by multiple editors to ensure that it matches the original as precisely as possible." I see no indication that anyone has proofread this article against the original, let alone multiple editors. Until such proofreading happens, this text is not eligible to be featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, EncycloPetey (talk • contribs), perhaps you could help with proofreading and/or suggest other editors that would be good at this task? Your help would be most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The criteria are now met, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not convinced this is among the "best" we have to offer, but I have no objections to selecting it for Featured status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support I've proofread the text now. —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

My thanks to Clockery (talk • contribs) for the proofread, and the Support. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

•  Support--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank Erasmo Barresi (talk • contribs) very much for kindly taking the time to be a 2nd proofreader, and for the Support. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

•  Support. It's a great piece, and a fitting honor for Adrianne.--Ragesoss (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ragesoss (talk • contribs), for your help contributing the photograph, and for your Support. -- Cirt (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for December 2014 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

First edition of the 1843 Christmas novella by Charles Dickens. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The book, A Christmas Carol, is a wonderful book but also well-known as is Alice In Wonderland, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, &c. Some books are so well-known that any surprise or new knowledge is already well-known. These types of well-known books regardless of the date printed and copyrighted are well-known and timeless. One artist even made a life-size sculpture of her daughter stepping through a Looking-Glass using real glass. These books are that well-known. I once had all three stories on Internet with my own hand-colored images long ago when there was a cry by parents and teachers for some children's books. At that time many webpage makers blacked out their web pages as protest against being told, or suggested, what should be on Internet. I went the other direction and created a Library of several of these books for Cornerstone Networks (CStone.Net), an ISP. So, there is some early Internet history for everyone here. These kinds of books are so well-known that they are constantly repeated as originals and are timeless. The only thing different is how the original stories are modified. But the stories are not new and never will be. —Maury (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, but save for December next. Moondyne (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, support; great to be featuring a first edition of such a famous work. Hesperian 03:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Not passed

Jane Eyre

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected due to not being a significant edition of this work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Late nineteenth century (c. 1890-1900) edition of the 1847 Gothic novel by Charlotte Brontë. Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we should feature insignificant editions. The first edition of Jane Eyre is significant. Arguably the third edition, being the last to be revised by the author, is even more significant. The second edition and the first American edition are of secondary significance. It seems to me that this c. 1900 reprint is of no significance whatsoever. Hesperian 13:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Hesperian that this later, insignificant edition is not suitable for being a Featured text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The Water Babies

The following discussion is closed:

Not passed at this time. Could still be re-nominated later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

1915 edition of the 1862-63 children's novel by Charles Kingsley. One of several from User:ShakespeareFan00/Adventures List. All famous works in the appropriate fully-validated condition on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per my comment in Jane Eyre section below: I don't think we should feature insignificant editions. Hesperian 13:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
• I like this text, but the biggest drawback is do we need to link to the book's front cover? It's a pretty cover, but it jars me a little bit because it doesn't "match" with the white background of the page.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Water Babies--The book's front cover and 1st image would look good if they were cleaned images. They are as dirty as the original book after years of use and abuse. I believe that when the book was new those images looked very good. Nobody took the time to clean those images. They're just smaller copies of the used book. —Maury (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Story of the Treasure Seekers

The following discussion is closed:

Not passed at this time. Could still be re-nominated later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

First edition (1899) of the children's novel by Edith Nesbit (which was also first in the "Bastables Series"). Another famous work, fully-validated on Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I like this, but there are a number of formatting irregularities, such as lines indented much too far, odd font sizing and spacing that I'd want to see corrected before featuring it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you elucidate? I can't see any oddities like these in the first two chapters. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Look for example at DjVu pages #19 and 21 (file pages, not those page numbers). You may have to open an editing window to see just how weirs some of this is. There is page text in page headers, for example. There were a lot of others I recall seeing, but I'm not spotting them right off. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)