Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2018

Featured

Pollyanna

The following discussion is closed:

selected for January 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic children's book which not only is a cracking read, even for an adult (speaking as one), but also had a significant cultural impact. I think it would make a great Featured Text. BethNaught (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support, it looks like this would be an excellent choice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Support obvious classic with great influence. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

 Support, but since the similar Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is already scheduled for January 2017, I recommend we hold this until January 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

February 2018 - Douglass

The following discussion is closed:

1855 work selected for February 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Last summer we decided it would be nice to celebrate the 200th birthday (Feb 2018) of Frederick Douglass by featuring something of his on the Main Page. It's time to decide what work that might be.

We completed two of his three autobiographies:

• Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave (1845) (transcription project)

  This work is shorter, includes audio, and is the better known and more frequently cited work, so we might choose to feature it for those reasons.

• My Bondage and My Freedom (1855) (transcription project)

  This work is harder to find, includes more of Douglass' life, is nearly twice as long, and includes extracts from famous speeches of his, so we might choose it for those reasons.

   Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

We have about a month to decide before a selection must be made (or else repeat last year's selection). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support, I'd go with the former, better-known work - but we can also feature both of them, either simultaneously or for 2 weeks each? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose the second text, as it still has too many errors, see [1]. Also there appears to be a systematic problem where "christian" in the text is transcribed as "Christian", see [2]. BethNaught (talk) 23:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for catching... Looks like it could use another proofread. I'm willing to claim Chapter 1 for starters... If anyone else wants to claim chapters to proofread, sign your user name at the work's Index Talk page. Perhaps we can get it ship-shape by February. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support the first text: a worthy story and author, and my spot-checks turned up not a worrying number of errors. BethNaught (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Since I wrote the above I have made a lot of corrections to the second work, checking most of it, albeit in a somewhat haphazard fashion. Londonjackbooks has also done a more thorough review of the first several chapters. After these efforts, I believe the second work stands up to the level of scrutiny I gave the first. Also, the second is a better book IMO. So I now  Support the second work, and am open to featuring the first alongside it. BethNaught (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Hymns (1860)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for March 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a notable collection, but includes many notable hymns, many of which were not previously on WS, or were not scan-backed. A better option would be Lyra Catholica, which is the original source of the notable hymns' translations, but who knows when that will be complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - it would be good to see us "show off" one of the numerous songbooks and hymnbooks we have available out there, to maybe get more people interested in adding them here. —unsigned comment by John Carter (talk) .
•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment In order to feature this, we would need a blurb for the main page. For a less notable publication, such as this one, will it be possible to write a meaningful blurb? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

  @EncycloPetey: I'll see what I can come up with. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Trees and Other Poems (1914)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for April 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

by Author:Joyce Kilmer. Fully validated, I went through each page & into the Main to adjust formatting for uniformity & to scan for common OCR, etc. errors.

The same year Trees &c. was published, Kilmer was abroad visiting England. Upon seeing the long lines of men waiting to enlist for WW1, he exclaimed, "My God, if I look at these boys much longer I'll have to hook on at the tail of this queue and join up with them!" He enlisted on 23 April 1917, shortly after America entered the war. Kilmer was killed on July 30, 1918—almost 100 years ago.

There is an extensive Wikipedia article about Kilmer's poem "Trees" (contained within this volume).

Proposing for April or May or perhaps the month of Kilmer's death (July) to mark 100 years. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks for running through the work... I primarily checked for formatting issues, and did not take a line-by-line approach. We seek perfection as a goal:

"Arise!—perfection seek.
Surmounting what is weak,
Toil on from peak to peak!" ***

But as I climbed on high,
Toward the forbidding sky
Perfection seemed to fly...

Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support BethNaught (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Una and the Lion

The following discussion is closed:

selected for May 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not such a well known work, I think, but I'll throw it out for consideration. Part eulogy, part call to arms, Florence Nightingale uses the story of Agnes Elizabeth Jones to urge women to take up nursing. I find it a very moving text, and it touches on the condition of the poor, the role of women, and the history of nursing in 19th century England.

2018 is the 150th anniversary of Jones's death. I would suggest featuring this work in May to coincide with International Nurses Day. BethNaught (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support for May. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 31/May 1887/Megalithic Monuments in Spain and Portugal

The following discussion is closed:

selected for July 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed for July 2018 to coincide with the 200th birthday of French anthropologist Jean-François-Albert du Pouget.

It's a PSM article, which is a large project here that's never been featured, and it has some important illustrations of Stone Age megalithic monuments from the Iberian Peninsula, which don't get as much attention as similar monuments found elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Oriental Scenery

The following discussion is closed:

selected for August 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing Oriental Scenery, a set of six art albums, for FT. Hrishikes (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

A Simplified Grammar of the Swedish Language

The following discussion is closed:

selected for September 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 will mark the 200th birthday of Danish linguist Elise Charlotte Otté, so how about featuring her book A Simplified Grammar of the Swedish Language, 6th edition? I don't think we've ever featured a book about a language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

 Support, but the transclusion should be migrated from {{page}} to the usual <pages /> syntax. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Done --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

The following discussion is closed:

selected for October 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

We have the first edition of this famous novella by Robert Louis Stevenson. It would be a shame not to feature it. Perhaps next October? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Support — Hrishikes (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Kipling's If—

The following discussion is closed:

selected for November 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Rudyard Kipling's "If—" has come a long way since it was first added to Wikisource in November 2003 (one of the first WS adds). I have recently linked the page to its 1910 source in Rewards and Fairies—which has yet to be proofread. I would like to nominate the single poem (fully validated) for Featured Text for November 2018 as it will mark the 15th anniversary (as I understand it to be) of Wikisource. Does only the poem itself need to be fully validated in order to be nominated? The WP excerpt in the notes section—should it stay or go? I figure if the poem makes Featured status, most of that info will go into the blurb anyway. Am I missing anything? Thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Featuring multiple works sounds good to me. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment (1) The summary notes at the outset read more like the introduction to an English paper than an introduction to the poem. Can the text be streamlined and made more "accessible" to the general reader? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Comment (2) I'm not sure that this work is celebratory enough in its own right. Perhaps we could feature 4-6 different kinds of items to celebrate the 15th anniversary of WS? That is, celebrate the variety of works we do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support plus  Comment — If— is a good proposal. Along with it, I would like to add Collected Physical Papers, November being the author's birth-cum-death month (provided validation is complete, of course). I have requested in Scriptorium for validation help. Hrishikes (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Another possible work to feature if we do multiple works: The Waste Land (1922) by T. S. Eliot, since (like Kipling's "If—") this was among the first works hosted on Wikisource, but has come a long way since then. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Messiah (1749)

The following discussion is closed:

selected for December 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hugely popular and well known oratorio, libretto now fully validated and ready for featured status. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weak  Support, in that this is clearly a significant and meritorious text, and I'd be fine with it on the main page, but I'm not sure how much of an impact it has without the music accompanying it. BethNaught (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not passed

The Decrees of the Vatican Council

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected. Requires another pass to fix issues. No progress in almost two years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Highly important documents in the history of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are much more important so maybe we'd want to hold off until the latter is complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment This may need another pass by an editor or two. On a quick look of a few pages, I found unjoined lines, missing small-caps, and smaller text that wasn't made smaller. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Eight or Nine Wise Words about Letter-Writing

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected. Requires another pass to fix issues. No progress in almost two years. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this little work by Carroll is interesting, fun, and quaint. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The tables do not seem to be displaying correctly. I would also want the illustrations to appear where they are discussed. The text is quite cryptic in some places without the accompanying illustration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Original Stories from Real Life

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected. Numerous typographical features require another pass. Missed desired date. --EncycloPetey (talk)

Nominating because it's complete and proofread, an interesting addition as moral fables from the 18th century by an author famous for philosophy, and for a personal reason, I would like it to be featured this April for my friend Adrianne Wadewitz who died April 8, four years ago. The only potential issues I immediately see: 1.) the "Download as PDF" does not make a full text (nor does, e.g. the Oriental Scenery nomination above--I assume this is a problem with the PDF maker?), 2.) the short long s character (<ſ>) could be replaced with either a standard short s or the {{ſ}} template (altho that is easily done with AWB), and 3.) this is from the second printing rather than the original edition. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Although the text has been Validated, there are still numerous typographical and punctuation issues noticeable from even a quick perusal. The headers are overloaded, and there is no introductory "Notes" on the lead section, other than a notice about converting to an edition. This text needs much more cleanup before it could be featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I'll be happy to fix whatever errors you find--can you clue me in on what you've seen so far? Also, what are you saying about the headers--are you just suggesting that I remove the names of the chapters and leave them as "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc.? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

 Support if the typographical issues are resolved. The chapter headers would be better with only "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc. instead of including the whole description. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl, @EncycloPetey: What do you think now? What more can I do to promote this work? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The only thing that jumps out at me still is the formatting of the drop initials. The additional formatting that has been applied knocks the drop initial letters out of alignment from the rest of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And now? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing the drop initials wasn't the issue; it was the additional forced formatting that was preventing the drop initial template from doing its job. We try to replicate the original as best we can, and we can do drop initials and large initials. And while I remember: the text summary on the main page is not easy to read. Perhaps someone with a good sense for summary text could streamline it a bit? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Like this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

No, like this. The template is called {{dropinitial}} and it does not require any additional formatting. Nor does the text require additional size adjustment, since the following capital letters are the same size as all the other capital letters on the page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Thanks a lot. Done now. What else can I do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Is this okay for the featured text next month? There's not a lot of lead time left. Strictly speaking, April is pretty arbitrary but I would appreciate it if we could have this promoted then. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

There are still numerous errors throughout. Picking a random chapter / page, I looked at page 47 of chapter VII. There is a period missing at the end of the chapter header (which is minor), but there is a hard line return coded in the middle of the first paragraph through an improper section break. I think a thorough pass through the entire work is needed, as I continue to find formatting issues like this each time I look. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again--I appreciate your feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Art of Bookbinding

The following discussion is closed:

Not selected. Stylistic inconsistencies, and no effort at improvement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a very long time since we featured a work on manufacture or of practical value. This volume not only describes the traditional practices but also includes many fine illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Would be nice to have a uniform formatting of captions for pictures.— Mpaa (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Very interesting book, and beautiful illustrations! --Dick Bos (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I would also support this if we made an effort to go back and make it render properly in mobile. As-is, the TOC renders poorly (it also does on desktop in Layout 2); there's also issues with (for example) explicit widths on the rule in the front matter, and some tables and up left aligned instead of centered. I also agree with Mpaa about having consistent image formatting, though I'd like to add that while some of the images do have alt-text, a number of them don't -- which should also be addressed for potential readers who are using assistive technology (eg. screen readers). Otherwise this work is pretty interesting, the images are high quality, and the nomination has been hanging around forever -- with a little TLC I think it would be a good and representative work. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  If you believe that mobile-rendering should become a criterion for Featured Texts, then you should start that conversation in the Scriptorium. Currently, mobile-rendering is not a FT criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

The same or similar problems exist for Layout 2 on desktop. There is already a Scriptorium discussion (several actually) about responsive and mobile rendering. Not specific to FT, but in general. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Layout 2 isn't applied to this work anywhere that I can see, so that issue isn't relevant here.

We judge works for FT by established criteria. If you believe we should start applying additional criteria, then that discussion should happen first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Layout 2 is my default. If you don't enforce a layout, then I feel it is my right to use whichever one I prefer, and I prefer Layout 2. Layout 4 has similar issues since it's the same as Layout 2 but with a sans-serif font.

But if that's the way we're doing it, fine.  Oppose per criteria 1. Formatting is inconsistent throughout the work, and per style guide the proofread work should match (within reason) the stylistic choices of the original published work. Certain areas have been identified, such as captions by user Mpaa over a year and a half ago, but no effort appears to have been made to address or discuss. Ironically enough, the too-wide rule on the title page that stretches the view in mobile and certain Layouts, is another example since it's full width in the scan but some arbitrary length in the page namespace. Others include the arbitary widths assigned to the different tables of contents/illustrations (full width in original, inconsistent in transclusion/proofreading); the wrapping of the page numbers in the table of contents; improper/misplaced paragraph breaks (for example, chapter 5; see paragraph starting with the words "between the two sheets first sewn"); inconsistent/incorrect positioning of images due to the lack of a {{clear}} or other mechanism (eg. chapter 12); etc. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Re: rule width. I think this could be resolved by adding "max-width:100%;" to {{rule}}. More details at Template talk:Rule. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Or you could just do {{rule}} without any parameters and it defaults to full width.... As I pointed out it is full width in the original work as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the physical page is only about 27em wide. Even on half a monitor, 100% produces a line substantially longer, proportionally, than originally. To me, in this case, 100% breaks the front matter up from a fairly "neat" centred block into two when viewed on a fairly wide PC window. Perhaps because a 100%-rule (solid black) is visually much heavier than the page break line (also 100%, but lighter and dashed). It's subjective, but how it looks on a PC is as important as making it look good on mobile.

Secondly, this doesn't fix any other case with a fixed-width rule where the width is greater than the parent. Since a phone screen can be as narrow as about 15em (about 320px for the default font size), and, moreover more narrow than the original page, there will be a lot (thousands) of these, and many of them will be cases where 100% can't be argued to represent the original intent. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:40, 18 September 2018 (UTC)