Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2024
 | 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. |
Featured
The following discussion is closed:
selected for January 2024 --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
The Labyrinth is one of the most important and influential works of Johan Amos Comenius. In November we are going to celebrate the 250th anniversary of his death, and so I am nominating this work for November 2020. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment The text uses the {{Greek}} template to display quotations from Ancient Greek, which is polytonic, but the template is explicitly designed for modern monotonic Greek. The {{polytonic}} template should be used. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I did not know it, thanks for explanation, I will remember it. Now it should be OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)- This is clearly the kind of text worthy of Featured status! I have done my usual approach of flitting over the text checking for errors, and I've found 28: [1]. However I can't say for sure how many pages I checked.
Given that I'm still finding errors I'll sayBethNaught (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Neutral for now.- Move to Support, after fixing some more errors I think this text is in a better place. BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Unless opposed, I will feature this work for January 2024. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Move to
The following discussion is closed:
Selected for February 2024. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's much-beloved and hugely influential epic poem about the expulsion of the Acadians; this is a transcription of the first edition. As far as I can tell, there aren't any particular upcoming anniversaries to schedule this for, and we haven't featured and long-form poetry since November 2017. BethNaught (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support Well done, I checked 10 random pages and did not find any typos or other errors to be corrected. As there are curly quotes used in the transcription, I just suggest to replace also straight apostrophes by curly ones to make it more consistent. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
- Support for November 2023. Azertus (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
- I've started a page to work on the blurb for the Main Page. Azertus (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Will be selected for February 2024. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Not passed
The following discussion is closed:
Not selected, illustrations need to be fixed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
A well-known book by New Zealander Georgina Burne Hetley, with color illustrations by the author. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Probably not eligible (unfortunately) because I had to access a print copy in the rare books room at the library and write out the lacunae on a few pages and then type them into the Pages. WMIII was happy to validate based on that, but they are non-verifiable without access to a print copy. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a shame, as this is a seminal work and beautifully illustrated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, just confirmed print pages 2 & 4 from the Preface remain problematic. Should we be able to find another scan and swap those two in, then this would be good to go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- IA has: (external scan) which looks like a clean scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Done — Hrishikes (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- IA has: (external scan) which looks like a clean scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, just confirmed print pages 2 & 4 from the Preface remain problematic. Should we be able to find another scan and swap those two in, then this would be good to go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's a shame, as this is a seminal work and beautifully illustrated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - Beautiful book, but it's unfortunate that the images are blown out. Compare Page:Native Flowers of New Zealand.djvu/81 with the original. The background drawings aren't even visible. Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- No problems with someone updating the images. Just upload new versions over the old ones rather than under new file names. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment I'd be happy to work on the images, but I don't want to interfere with anybody else's efforts. Is anybody else already working on this? -Pete (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - Since the illustrations are the main feature of this book, they need to be fixed up before the work is featured. Nosferattus (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Seconded; good candidate for re-nomination when the images are tackled. Azertus (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
Not selected, not a remarkable or significant work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I am nominating this work as it is an interesting view following San Francisco's earthquake in 1906. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 13:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment "Interesting view" is not worthy of featuring an item. There is no special significance in the work that I can see; it is not among the best offerings at Wikisource. The speech seems to be a bit of a ramble, and the publication provides no context. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
- Comment (Caveats: I am new to the FT process, and primarily interested in learning about it. Along with @Thatoneweirdwikier: I'm one of the primary editors who worked on this text.)
- @EncycloPetey: I'm curious about your comment. It seems to me that the significance of whether something is an "interesting view" is not covered by any of the FT criteria. Am I correct in understanding that this is where subjective judgment comes in? Seems sensible enough if so, but if I'd be interested to learn what are the proper criteria for determining what texts are worth featuring, in your view. I'll comment that as a student of U.S. west coast history in this period, and as a former resident of San Francisco, I found Bancroft's view in this piece quite striking, and I am glad to have encountered it. I found a brief contemporaneous review which summarizes the thesis. -Pete (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is the result of previous discussions. A featured text is considered "the best of what Wikisource has to offer". For example, we had Jane Eyre nominated for FT, but it was not featured because the nominated edition was a later, unremarkable edition, neither the first edition nor the authoritative one, nor a richly illustrated one. Jane Eyre as a novel was considered worth featuring, but not that edition, on the basis of unremarkability. The proposed pair of speeches are not remarkable in any way, and do not showcase what Wikisource has to offer. I lived in the Bay Area for a long time, and I know who Bancroft is, but beyond that very local interest, there is no anniversary to mark, nor lasting historical impact of the work, nor anything to recommend them for featuring. It certainly ought to be listed in a Portal somewhere, but I don't see it as a featurable text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you -- very helpful. -Pete (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I would still argue it meets the criteria. When I wrote 'interesting view', I assumed that the fact it met the criteria was a given. Hopefully that clears it up. Thanks, Thatone
weirdwikier Say hi 06:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC) - @Thatoneweirdwikier: If I'm understanding correctly, nobody has argued that it does not meet the criteria; but the criteria here on Wikisource, I think, are a minimum qualification, not a reason to promote. Unlike English Wikipedia and probably some other sites, "featured" status is not something obtained in the abstract, but something that indicates an item has been selected to be featured on the front page for a month. So, note that EncycloPetey merely commented, but did not vote
- It is the result of previous discussions. A featured text is considered "the best of what Wikisource has to offer". For example, we had Jane Eyre nominated for FT, but it was not featured because the nominated edition was a later, unremarkable edition, neither the first edition nor the authoritative one, nor a richly illustrated one. Jane Eyre as a novel was considered worth featuring, but not that edition, on the basis of unremarkability. The proposed pair of speeches are not remarkable in any way, and do not showcase what Wikisource has to offer. I lived in the Bay Area for a long time, and I know who Bancroft is, but beyond that very local interest, there is no anniversary to mark, nor lasting historical impact of the work, nor anything to recommend them for featuring. It certainly ought to be listed in a Portal somewhere, but I don't see it as a featurable text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey: I'm curious about your comment. It seems to me that the significance of whether something is an "interesting view" is not covered by any of the FT criteria. Am I correct in understanding that this is where subjective judgment comes in? Seems sensible enough if so, but if I'd be interested to learn what are the proper criteria for determining what texts are worth featuring, in your view. I'll comment that as a student of U.S. west coast history in this period, and as a former resident of San Francisco, I found Bancroft's view in this piece quite striking, and I am glad to have encountered it. I found a brief contemporaneous review which summarizes the thesis. -Pete (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
against; I think they are (tacitly) acknowledging that the criteria have been met, but skeptical about whether this item is worthy of featuring on the front page (in relation to other works, which may have more topical interest etc.) Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. I do think this could use some more spelling out in the text introducing "Featured texts", which would help newcomers like us form more realistic expectations; I'm happy to work on that, but I'd like to be sure I understand it well before I start making suggestions.
-Pete (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed. Meeting the criteria (item 1) is considered prerequisite to nomination, not a reason for being featured (item 4) in and of itself. The process description should be clarified and updated to current norms. I will try a draft when I have the time to spend doing so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per EncycloPetey. Not a remarkable or significant work. Someone still needs to revise the featured text criteria to clarify what we consider worthy of featuring. Nosferattus (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed:
not selected, lack of support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Style fulfills all applicable style guidelines (and the format is quite loyal to the original one), well-proofread, scanned from the official gazette, and also inflicted significant importance/controversy worldwide.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment What is the reason for nomination? You say "inflicted significant importance/controversy worldwide", but I have not heard of this act. Could you elaborate? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey:See this. Due to alleged unfairness to Muslim refugees, the enactment of this act inflicts mass protests around India, some turned violent. Should have some plenty Google search results.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Part of the nomination process is to provide a summary reason for the nomination. This helps both with voting and for the person who has to write the blurb for the main page. Telling commenters to look elsewhere or search the web is not a reason for nomination. The nominator should give their reasons why they think the nomination should be featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- @EncycloPetey:See this. Due to alleged unfairness to Muslim refugees, the enactment of this act inflicts mass protests around India, some turned violent. Should have some plenty Google search results.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Updated explanation:"Section 2 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, allows 'any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014' become refugees, while implicitly excluding Muslim refugees. Such treatment leads to criticism of religious discrimination and international concern, and later fueled a prolonged series of protests among India, some turned violent." I'm new to FTC, and so I need to describe why the information of the text should be featured?廣九直通車 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. You are nominating this work to be Featured. This means you should present your reasons for nominating it, and not ask people to figure out those reasons for for themselves. Why do you think this work deserves to be Featured for a month on the Main page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- See the bolded reasons above. Nominated for significant local social and international importance.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- It might or might not be enough to warrant Featuring. What I see is that there were some protests in India over this, and people of Indian descent protested elsewhere as well. Responses to nomination may take weeks or even months. We won't know until people begin voicing their opinions about the nomination. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- See the bolded reasons above. Nominated for significant local social and international importance.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. You are nominating this work to be Featured. This means you should present your reasons for nominating it, and not ask people to figure out those reasons for for themselves. Why do you think this work deserves to be Featured for a month on the Main page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I'd lean towards support, as it's certainly a document with uncommonly strong links to real and current events (we have lots of works that relate to historical events, but not a lot from the modern world, disregarding the drama from the US). However, I think since it's a fairly small work, the associated documents of this one (including the associated NRC documents) should be added before this capstone is featured. From a skim of the enWP articles, perhaps Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 and the other amendments back to Citizenship Act, 1955, Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, The Foreigners Act, 1946, etc? Hopefully there might also be some court ruling or something non-legislative to mix it up a little bit. And then perhaps have a section of Portal:Law of India or a sub-portal or something to tie it together thematically? Without some kind of librarianship, I don't find simple replication of short documents that are already publicly available electronically (http://egazette.nic.in and https://indiacode.nic.in) particularly thrilling.
- Also, I'm a little wary of featuring a text that uses sidenotes that don't work on mobile browsers and don't work if the user is using Layout 1 (though it's defaulted to Layout 2, users can turn of defaulting). But I know sidenotes are an everlasting pain in the backside, so maybe it's just tough. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll then be working on Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Inductiveload:And also Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2015. Proofreading is appreciated.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)