Wikibooks:Featured books/Nominations/Addition/Radiation Oncology

Radiation Oncology

This book is extensively sourced, is organized an written in a way that makes sense for the audience. While the book is still undergoing expansion, it is already very large (it has a deep hierarchical structure, so there is even more content than the front page would otherwise lead you to believe). For example, there are 3 redlinks in Supportive care, and there is still planned expansion in Other Topics. I believe it is complete enough to teach from currently. Navigation is perhaps not perfect though.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I'm a bit biased of course, but a lot of work has gone into this book, and it has grown beyond our expectations becoming a valuable resource. I feel it meets all of the criteria and is a worthy nomination. — Brim (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support as per nom. The authors have clearly put a lot of work into this book, it should be recognized :) Thereen (talk) 07:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support --Jomegat (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support I don't understand a lot of what is written in this book so it's obviously directed towards those who are very familiar with the topic but it is well written, sources are indicated and the layout is clear although it needs the work of someone to make it a little more attractive. --Xania ^talk 20:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The content (the difficult bit) looks fantastic. However, I don't think there's much that's more daunting than a massive contents page with just reams and reams of links. If someone can do a little to make the contents page a little more inviting and welcoming, I'd be more than happy to support. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 20:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the reasons we didn't try to "beautify" the page is that it is functional; that is, it's easy to go right to the given section without a lot of clicking through hierarchy. If anyone has a nice format in mind, which nevertheless remains direct, I would be happy to take a look. Tdvorak (talk) 22:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Perhaps something similar to this? Unfortunately there are so many pages to link up it may still be too long.Thereen (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment I took a look at the Featured books dealing with Natural Sciences, and for all of them the main page is pretty much a list of links, some shorter, some longer. Admittedly, our links far exceeds the length of the average main page. I do agree that it could use some streamlining and will work on it as I have time. Web designer/layout artist I am not. Tdvorak (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done I have streamlined the Main Page using the template from Featured Books. Hope this works :) Tdvorak (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see there's still the more utilitarian TOC, but the main one looks good now!  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, I think the full-link page (now TOC) is still helpful, but the Main Page is more representative now. Since I started the reorganization, I am going to work on that one as well, when I have the energy :) Thanks for fixing all the redirects in the book; I knew some were there but didn't have a chance to deal with them yet. Tdvorak (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. A very Good Book. Webaware ^talk 03:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Support per nom. This book is a wonderful clinical resource and is used often within my department. Djma12 (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Nicely written, although I could spot some places where the formatting might do well to improve, specifically on the cover page. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Enough votes, no sense waiting any longer because this really is a good book. This is now featured. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)