Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2017

Featured

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm

The following discussion is closed:

selected for January 2017

I am proposing this classic children's novel for FT. Hrishikes (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The primary page in the Main namespace needs restructuring. It looks like a garbled mess of random content (with the contents too far down the page), and ends with page 1 of the main text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Modified. Hrishikes (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I'm setting this work for December 2016, but we'll need a blurb for the main page explaining what this work is and why it is significant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is a 1903 classic children's novel by Kate Douglas Wiggin, that tells the story of Rebecca Rowena Randall, who lives with her two stern aunts in the fictional village of Riverboro, Maine. Rebecca's positive outlook inspires her aunts, but she faces many trials and tribulations in her young life, giving her wisdom and understanding. The character of Rebecca has become emblematic of any person who is relentlessly optimistic. The novel has since been adapted for the stage, and filmed three times – in 1917, 1932, and 1938, with Shirley Temple in the title role in 1938. —C. F. 18:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Clandestine Marriage

The following discussion is closed:

selected for February 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like us to feature The Clandestine Marriage (1766) by George Colman & David Garrick for February 2017 (next month). That makes this a rush nomination, and I apologize that the work was not ready for consideration sooner.

February 2017 marks the 300th birthday of co-author David Garrick, a playwright and actor who was considered the foremost interpreter of Shakespeare in his day. He performed in both tragic and comic roles, and was arguably the best known actor of the 18th century—the Laurence Olivier of his age, if you will.

The Clandestine Marriage is, thus far, the only work we have on Wikisource by Garrick. It is one of his best known plays, a comedy of both manners and errors. It fits well with a February theme of love for Valentine's Day. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support (as nom) --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support per nom —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

ſupport Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Comment, I think it was proofread by one user only, if so, it is against the FT rule. Hrishikes (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It's validated, so at least two users were involved... at least I assume that is the meaning of that particular criterion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

BethNaught is catching many of my oversights as we speak... increasing the set of eyes involved :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support BethNaught (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Bab" Ballads

The following discussion is closed:

selected for March 2017

These are fun poems, and many of them were inspirations for Gilbert's later plays and operas. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support Hrishikes (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Pro Patria (Coates)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for April 2017

A little early, but proposed for April 2017 FT. April being poetry month, and 2017 marking the 100th anniversary of the work, this pamphlet of poetry in support of American involvement in WWI also includes excerpts from President Wilson's Address to the Congress of the United States on April 2, 1917. A WP article also exists for the work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Although I think this might make a better selection for July than April, especially if we end up with a longer poetical offering. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel it is significant (for FT purposes) that American entry into the war also took place in April, and that length of text offering is perhaps less significant a factor. Some may also feel that two works of poetry in a year (April & July) as FT may be too much. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support. I don't think two poetic works in a year is too much. Seven, maybe. Two, not even close. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

 Comment @Londonjackbooks: We still need someone to write the blurb for the main page that explains what this work is, who wrote it, its significance, etc. I am not knowledgeable enough to write such a blurb, and without one, this text cannot be slotted into the FT template. Nor is the WP article particularly helpful, and it's barely more than a stub. So, until such a blurb is submitted, this text cannot be scheduled to appear on the main page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• @EncycloPetey: I will do my best to prepare a blurb to submit for proposal. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the following (I invite criticism... writing blurbs is not a strength of mine!):

Pro Patria is a pamphlet of seven poems written by Philadelphia poet Florence Earle Coates and published one hundred years ago in support of American involvement in World War I. Mrs. Coates was abroad at the outbreak of the war in early August 1914 and witness to soldiers marching along the quays of Marseilles entrained for northern France. In response, she laments the "hell of pain" war makes of earth in an early poem entitled "War"; but for Coates, to "have looked with anguished eyes / On things no eye should see" and do nothing is shameful and tantamount to cowardice. Coates penned nearly thirty poems relating to the war between 1914 and 1919. The poems contained in Pro Patria sound a call to eschew fear, and to embrace sacrifice and courage in the face of pain while taking up the cause of the innocent:

Deem not that we, whom our fathers before us
Taught to love freedom and died to make free,
Coward shall fly, while the Heavens are o'er us,
Craft of the ether or boats under sea.

***

If they tell you that we think,
When the robber comes by night
And we see 'neath murderous Might
Innocence unfriended sink,
We should be "too proud to fight"—
Don't believe it!

(Read on...)

Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Panchatantra (Purnabhadra's Recension of 1199 CE)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for May 2017

The work here went through POTM. Original text is the most translated non-religious text in history, per Wikipedia. This translation is by the finest translator America has produced, per Wikipedia. Hrishikes (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The main page needs some sort of introductory text about this particular edition, if we can provide it. Since this is our only edition of the work at present, it could also benefit from a brief explanation of the origin and nature of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not our only edition. Another edition is Index:The Fables of Bidpai (Panchatantra).djvu. Hrishikes (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Then we need a versions page, and links both ways between that page and the versions themselves. This version will need to have its own data item at Wikidata, and the versions page should be linked to the primary data item. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The main page needs some sort of introductory text about this particular edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Done -- Hrishikes (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment I'm slotting this in as the October 2016 FT. We still need someone to write the blurb for the main page that explains what this work is, who wrote it, it's significance, and provide information about this particular edition. I am not knowledgeable enough to write such a blurb, and without one, this text cannot be slotted into the FT template. So, until such a blurb is submitted, this text cannot be scheduled to appear on the main page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The Panchatantra is an ancient collection of animal fables presented within a frame narrative. Written in the 3rd century BCE, it is attributed to the Indian scholar Vishnu Sharma, though many of the fables included are much older. Over two hundred versions are known to exist in over fifty languages. This 12th-century recension by the Jain monk Purnabhadra, known as the North Western Family Sanskrit text, is a blending and rearranging of three earlier texts. The translation by Arthur William Ryder remains popular and retains the prose and verse sections of the original.

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support wholeheartedly. @Beleg Tâl:'s blurb is good, but in my op, something about the significance of the stories might be added to it as well. Most kids here in India grew up on a steady diet of the Panchatantra, Hitopadesha, Ramayana, Mahabharata, whatnot, throughout their childhood, (speaking for myself, anyway) and the stories have influenced a whole lot of spin-offs and versions in other countries as well (see w:Panchatantra). I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to add all this, but I think a bit of background info about the cultural aspect of it would be informative. —C. F. 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Panchatantra is an ancient collection of animal fables. Written in the 3rd century BCE, it is attributed to the Indian scholar Vishnu Sharma, though many of the fables included are much older. Described as a nītiśāstra – a treatise on human conduct – it remains one of the best-known Indian texts, with over two hundred different versions in over fifty languages. This 12th-century recension by the Jain monk Purnabhadra is a blending and rearranging of three earlier texts. The translation by Arthur William Ryder remains popular and retains the prose and verse sections of the original. (improve, please) —C. F. 18:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Australian Legendary Tales

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for June 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

A late 19th century work of a white woman's interpretation of indigenous Australian's dreamtime (folklore), and I understand that it is one of the first published works of indigenous Australians' mythology (citation needed). It is an illustrated work, and has librivox recordings on each page, and an introduction by Lang, renowned folklorist and anthropologist of that period. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I should note that the work does have its own wikipedia article, and is subject to published commentary. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The index file might need a bit of clarification, for those folks looking at the source and seeing problematic and not-proofed pages. On a quick scan, the images look good to me. :) Someone might want to make sure the Librivox recordings match THIS text before it gets featured. Outlier59 (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To my understanding FT status has been applied based on the presentation in main ns (the work proper), rather than the state of the index file. I have corrected the index page to categorise to advertising not transcluded. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume other people besides me also click on tabs and links for a FT work to see what went into it and how well-documented it is. OK, I admit, that's nerdy....

The index file looks good! And I listened to the Librivox on Australian Legendary Tales/The Mayamah -- which is the 12th story in this collection. The narrator refers to this story as "Chapter 12" (this version does not contain chapter numbers). Other than that, I'd say it's a good reading.

The OCLC World Cat cover[1] differs from the cover we have for this version. Do we have the original edition here? If not, we might want to note that this is a reprint or something. Outlier59 (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment The text needs some formatting cleanup. In this tale, for example, the block quotes come in two different sizes in the transclusion, even through they are they same size as each other in the original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

checked the formatting and resolved instances. — billinghurst sDrewth

•  Support The work is as per wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Library#Australian indigenous religions still counted as sufficiently important to be included in the bibliography for an article on that subject, so it sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Is there some reason for not including the cover or cover art in the transcription? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • IDK but I added it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Civil Disobedience

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for July 2017 --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Nominating Thoreau's essay "Resistance to Civil Government", more often titled "Civil Disobedience" for July 2017, as it will mark the 200th anniversary of his birth. We haven't featured an essay in years, or a work with an audio file attached.

There is a LibriVox recording at IA which could be added to Commons and to our copy of the work, but it's on the large side for my computer to handle. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Done at Commons It is in two parts. Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. LibriVox recordings now linked from the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

 Support --Spangineer (háblame) 21:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains

The following discussion is closed:

selected for August 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This work, although full of whimsical and archaic spelling and displays a significant lack of knowledge while discussing local culture, is nevertheless noteworthy for being one of the earliest works presenting before the world a visual display of Himalayan and other Indian scenery. The watercolors are quite good, this author's paintings discussed/listed at 1, 2, 3. Hrishikes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

At present I can't support for technical reasons. The display version of the images need to be drastically reduced in size. The first image on the main page is far too big at 9 Mb. I had to kill the page load to get my computer to respond. I see that the other images are of a similar size. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Rectifications done. Hrishikes (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The scaled-down duplicates you have created will be candidates for deletion at Commons. The Mediawiki platform contains features that make it unnecessary to host multiple versions of an image at a range of resolutions. These features are accessed by using the standard [[Image:...]] wikicode to embed images. The problem here is that you have used {{FI}} to bypass those standard features. This problem should not be "solved" by uploading multiple versions of the same image. The solution is to embed the images in the standard manner intended by the Mediawiki platform. Hesperian 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you please rectify one image by your method, so that I can understand the procedure? I understood that BWC was objecting to the actual size in mb of the images and took action accordingly. Hrishikes (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

[2] Hesperian 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it ok now? Hrishikes (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: It would help us here on Wikisource if mw:Help:Images were more widely known. I've been bumbling around using various image templates. Can a note be put on the image template pages to guide Wikisource editors to mw:Help:Images? It lists all the options/pipes. Outlier59 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

 Comment This nomination has been up for nearly a year, and awaiting comment for 8 months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Subjection of Women

The following discussion is closed:

selected for September 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

We now have a validated copy of what is (as far as one can tell) the first edition of this essay by J. S. Mill. It's a major work in the history of feminist philosophy, with Mill being one of the earliest male feminists and the first member of the British Parliament to advocate female suffrage (per Wikipedia). It's a powerfully written text and although its aims and many of its arguments will be familiar to us nowadays, it is nevertheless very educational in terms of learning about the historical subjection of women; moreover it remains highly relevant to today's world. For these reasons I think it would be an excellent featured text. BethNaught (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is selected (I haven't looked it over yet), should we use it in one of the remaining slots at the end of this year, or hold it until March, 2018, when WP has their women in history month? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. On the one hand it would certainly fit the theme. On the other, if we are going to have an on-theme work for women in history month, I would find it a little odd—not wrong, just a bit odd—for it to be by a man. That said, we have FTs allocated up to and including August, so (assuming this work attracts support) we can afford to hold off deciding—if something better comes along for March about women, put this in 2017 (probably September to have a decent spacing), otherwise put this one out in March. BethNaught (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A Princess of Mars

The following discussion is closed:

selected for October 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for October 2017, which will mark the 100th anniversary of its publication in book form. It is the first of the "Mars / Barsoom" series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. We've not had an adventure novel since the start of 2014, we featured only two novels in 2015, and none at all in 2016. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Because, well, duh. ;) John Carter (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Prometheus Bound (Browning tr.)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for November 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nominating Prometheus Bound as translated by Elizabeth Barrett Browning from Aeschylus.

We've only ever featured a play once before (an English comedy), but never a Greek play. Nor have we ever featured any Greek or Latin literature, which I hope will change in coming years. The nominated edition is notable for the translator as well, and is Browning's revised translation of the play, and includes a LibriVox audio recording of the play. I'd like to feature this work in November. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

 Support -- BethNaught (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1910)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for December 2017 —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This beloved classic is now scan backed and would be an excellent featured text. Alternatively, any other Beatrix Potter work with a finished scan would be a good option. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• So I was actually just thinking that it would be interesting (and a little different) to feature Beatrix Potter as an author (eg. feature all of her works at once, maybe under the heading "Peter Rabbit series") once we finish transcribing the four remaining works of hers. Given that we'll have the entire Peter Rabbit series minus the one that's still under copyright. Each of the books themselves is quite short, all of our transcriptions so far are of excellent quality in terms of images and scans, and the books themselves have a certain amount of continuity in terms of characters, settings, and so on.

But given that we've never actually done that before as far as I know, I'd  Support just featuring The Tale of Peter Rabbit individually as an alternative. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

We've done something similar, I believe, with the Romanes Lecture feature a few years back. I would support waiting until all the Peter Rabbit tales are validated to better feature the whole public domain corpus.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

All hosted works by Potter are now validated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Support either the work on its own or as one of the available PD works by the author. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Support. This would make a good read for the holidays, so after December has ended, I'll set this one up for December 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. I'd also support featuring the complete PD tales of Beatrix Potter; in particular, I'd point out that the Tale of the Tailor of Gloucester is a holiday-related story. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Beatrix Potter for drafting the mainspace blurb for the Tales of Beatrix Potter, if anyone wants to take a stab at it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed blurb:

Extended content

Beatrix Potter (28 July 1866 – 22 December 1943) was an English author best known for her series of illustrated children's books known as the Tales of Beatrix Potter. Twenty-three titles were published between 1902 and 1930, beginning with The Tale of Peter Rabbit, which would become one of the best-selling books of all time. A twenty-fourth manuscript, The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots, was discovered in 2015 and published in 2016 to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.

The immense popularity of Potter's books was based on the lively quality of her illustrations, the non-didactic nature of her stories, the depiction of the rural countryside, and the imaginative qualities she lent to her animal characters. Potter's sense for business resulted in considerable commercial success in licensed merchandise as well.

ONCE upon a time there were four little Rabbits, and their names were—

Flopsy,
Mopsy,
Cotton-tail,
and Peter.

(Read on...)

Alternately:

Extended content

Beatrix Potter (28 July 1866 – 22 December 1943) was an English author best known for her series of illustrated children's books known as the Tales of Beatrix Potter. Twenty-three titles were published between 1902 and 1930, beginning with The Tale of Peter Rabbit, which would become one of the best-selling books of all time. A twenty-fourth manuscript, The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots, was discovered in 2015 and published in 2016 to mark the 150th anniversary of her birth.

The immense popularity of Potter's books was based on the lively quality of her illustrations, the non-didactic nature of her stories, the depiction of the rural countryside, and the imaginative qualities she lent to her animal characters. Potter's sense for business resulted in considerable commercial success in licensed merchandise as well.

1. The Tale of Peter Rabbit
2. The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin
3. The Tailor of Gloucester
4. The Tale of Benjamin Bunny
5. The Tale of Two Bad Mice
6. The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle
7. The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher
8. The Tale of Tom Kitten
9. The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck
10. The Tale of the Flopsy Bunnies
11. The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse
12. The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes
13. The Tale of Johnny Town-Mouse
14. The Tale of Mr. Tod
15. The Tale of Pigling Bland
16. The Tale of Samuel Whiskers
    or The Roly-Poly Pudding
17. The Tale of The Pie and The Patty-Pan
18. The Tale of Ginger and Pickles
19. The Tale of Little Pig Robinson
    (under copyright in the USA)
20. The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit
21. The Story of Miss Moppet
22. Appley Dapply's Nursery Rhymes
23. Cecily Parsley's Nursery Rhymes
24. The Tale of Kitty-in-Boots

I'm not very good at blurbs so improvements are welcome. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Not passed

Notice of Gigantic Horned Dinosauria From the Cretaceous

The following discussion is closed:

not selected

The original description of the widely beloved dinosaur Triceratops and the lesser known but scientifically significant Nodosaurus, the armored dinosaur which has its own family named after it. This archive of Othniel Marsh's original 1889 scientific paper has been tastefully and subtly wikilinked to clarify confusing terms and enable users easy access to up-to-date information on topics discussed therein and relevant authors and works cited in the text. Abyssal (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a non-wikilinked clean copy (required)? The Haz _talk 19:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, here are the clean versions of the pages: page 1, page 2, and page 3. Abyssal (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 OpposeHazmat2 was not asking about a clean source file, but about a clean and un-wikilinked document proofread from those files. More importantly, I can see formatting problems right away. The work needs {{small-caps}} in several places, for starters. The work needs to be cleaned up to basic standards of formatting before it could be considered. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Those revisions were validated. I've corrected the small caps problem (in some places the template was in use but not functioning because the text was written in all caps) and a few minor formatting problems. I can't find any more formatting discrepencies. I'm going to create a clean version manually that should get this text up to snuff in a few hours. Abyssal (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Should be cleaned up now. Abyssal (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well... mostly. I found several more style and textual problems, but have corrected those now. There remains one additional problem to be solved: The image caption states "natural size". So, is it? We need to ensure that any image labelled as "natural size" is displayed at the correct size. What is the size of the image in the original text? I cannot determine this solely from our electronic copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to correct those, and good catch with the "natural size". I think it should be fine to remove that caption since it will display at a different size on each monitor and at different screen resolutions anyway. The Haz _talk 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Whilst at a simplistic level this is "true," from metadata on Commons one can determine the scan resolution (430x663pts) and if the worst came to the worst has anybody considered consulting user:Abyssal, or perhaps looked at the page size of the journal "American Journal of Science." Hmm? Laziness does not half explain this? —unsigned comment by 121.217.225.156 (talk) .

Maybe we could replace the caption with "image in original publication displayed at natural size" or a message to that effect? Abyssal (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I personally think this is a good idea, or just measure the original if you have it and put that in the caption. I'm not sure what that last "laziness" comment is about. Even if you can calculate the size it's supposed to be you won't be able to display it at that size anyway (again, screen size and resolution).

Instead of replacing the caption, what about using a tooltip, so that the notice will appear when the mouse hovers over the text, seems like a good idea. Since this sort of thing is likely to crop up again, we might even make some kind of notation in the template documentation about how we chose to handle this situation here. This is a sort of annotation, but in a situation like this one, I think it's necessarily part of out "Best practices" to annotate for the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I typically read on a tablet or e-reader, so perhaps I'm biased, but I'm not a fan of the tooltip idea in this case. Let's see what others think. The Haz _talk 03:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support I don't think "natural size" is a problem; it's just a reproduction, just as the source scan is not actually natural size unless you zoom just perfectly. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree in most cases, but not in a scientific article setting forth morphology, where an image is captioned "natural size". --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Not selected. Although this work does have some historical significance in the world of palaeontological nomenclature, the text is very short, rather technical, and contains a single line illustration of three dermal ossicles. There is nothing here of interest for the general reader, and I do not think it qualifies as being among the "best" Wikisource has to offer. Add to that the fact that in nearly two years, this nomination has received a single vote of support. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church

The following discussion is closed:

Nomination failed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

This work brings together several translations of seven highly notable mediaeval hymns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment A good selection, as I don't think we've ever featured a work on music before, but this needs some cleanup of format and links. There are at least some links in the work that are red and will always remain so, because they link to titles of works that were not written in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be willing to clean up further. I don't believe redlinks are a problem, as all of the linked works may be added in the future as translations. I don't know what further cleanup would be desired with formatting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not the existence of re links per se, although such links do indeed attract vandals when present in FT. No, my concern is for red links to non-English titles. Yes, we might some day have a translation here of Dante's Cantate spirituali, but it's extremely unlikely that the English translation would have that title. It's also my experience that red links to titles often use an incomplete or even incorrect title, so the link is not completed when the target work in finally added to Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm not a huge fan of the navigation between the English and Latin sites, but maybe it's unavoidable. For example, the "next" link on The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church/The Celestial Country/Neale takes me to Latin, which has a very different page layout. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• no support taking them off to another wiki, with another style, is not realistic for our featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a better way to handle this? I can put the Latin text here if it's preferred. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

    Conventional policy says "no". The Latin text is at the Latin Wikisource, while the English is here. Alternatively, the whole work would be moved to "multilingual" Wikisource, at which point it would all be in a single location, but not eligible for FT because it's no longer here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The Pilgrim's Progress (1909)

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected for being an abridged edition of a work. --EncycloPetey (talk)

I am wondering if this should be considered for FT status now that's been fully validated and transcluded.

If there are specfic concerns please don't hesitate to list them below.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral for now—I validated this particular version of Pilgrim's Progress and I don't recall anything particularly outstanding about this abridged edition. What would make it worth featuring on our Main page for a month? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Also neutral. The Pilgrim's Progress itself is arguably one of the most important pieces of religious English literature, but -- like Beeswaxcandle above -- I'm not sure that this particular version merits the same distinction. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• not support pushing works that are at the edges of style guide is not my favoured approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

What's the style concern? In any event this is an abridged edition and so might fail on those grounds alone. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)