Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2015

Featured

The Russian School of Painting

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for January 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Russian School of Painting (1916) by Alexandre Benois, translated by Avrahm Yarmolinsky would be a great selection. We seldom feature books on art, and this one is a survey of Russian painting right up the the point of the Soviet era (with full-color images of paintings included), written by a prominent and influential Russian artist.

Captain Nemo did a great job in selecting and proofreading this work. The only hangup is that there are about 50 pages waiting to be validated. Once the remainder of the volume is validated, I'd love to see this featured. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with EncycloPetey's statement on The Russian School of Painting. I have looked it over in the recent past but do not recall if I added any validations or not.

EncycloPetey, why not join together and get this small and excellent work validated? I have already started on it. Kindest regards to all, —Maury (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Maury, no, you haven't added validations (until recently) on this work. Nearly all of the validation is mine, although K. Wright did a swath through the later chapters as well. I have been doing validation, a bit at a time, since the work was proofread. ;) Thanks for the assistance. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just started today. I also noted that your name was on the image work I saw. I didn't look back to see who has done all of the validations because I prefer to move forward and complete the validations today if possible. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I helped to get the images done while Captain Nemo proofread the text. Again, thanks for the help in this work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You all are very welcome with my very small part. Captain Nemo [Omen] seems fast and accurate. He must type with two hands and not have to look at his keyboard as I do. It is all validated now after you finish correcting my validations. Done Shrug....walking away... —Maury (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I support this for featured text. One thing that'd be nice is to link to each individual painting listed in this work (if it exists on Commons). If I can get some free time, I'll help out with that.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the images are located on Commons; that's where they display from. They are not located here on Wikisource. If you click on on of the images, it gives you a link to its information page on Commons. There's no need to add more links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. I meant that the book refers to works which don't have pictures already in the book (e.g., this page which talks about Polenov's Moscow Courtyard). I intended my comment to be create links to these works, so that a reader can merely click on the link to see a picture of the painting and know what is being referred to.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 12:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how that would work, since you'd be linking text to an image that might (or might not) exist, without actually displaying it. In prepping the images that do appear in the book, I found that there were quite a few that didn't exist at Commons. Given that this work was published prior to the October Revolution, it is possible that some of those works mentioned no longer exist. The ideal situation would be to link to articles on Wikipedia about each work mentioned, but Wikipedia does not have many articles about individual Russian paintings. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a vague idea of what you two are writing about and I support the book as a Featured Text. To add image links to the text is it not possible to upload those paintings not displayed in the book to wiki-commons under "Russia", "Russian Art" (whatever), and then link to them as desired? Too, would that negate the book as a Featured Text? —Maury (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Adding images to a book (that were not originally in the book) is discouraged whether or not a text is featured. There is an added difficulty of finding the paintings that are mentioned, but not shown. Some pieces of art are created in more than one version; the opening portrait of Nicholas II, for example, was painted by the artist in more than one way, so that there is more than one painting he did in that same pose, with similar composition, but with very different brush strokes. Some of the paintings were hard to track down even with a copy of the image shown, because names of paintings are not always given by the artist, but sometimes by critics. A single painting may thus have several different titles, and the Russian names that were translated as part of the book will not always be the same as the names given to those paintings by English-speaking art historians. There would have to be a lot of interpretation and guesswork. It might be better to create a separate annotated edition of this book, and work in the additional illustrations there, rather than try to fit them in to the current version of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I was never proposing adding the art themselves, just links to them. Kind of as we add links to works on Wikisource when another work mentions it in the text. I merely wanted to give curious readers a way to view a work that didn't have an illustration while still respecting the integrity of the book. But it seems a bit more complicated to do, so maybe it's not worth it. Still, I support it as a featured text.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I view the solution as simple. Simply find the paintings on Internet to make sure you have enough then make a Category on Commons such as Art, which probably already exists, make a sub-category on Russian art if it is indeed all Russian art, upload the images there on Commons->art->Russian art or Russia or the title of your book, and then hyperlink to the text here in your book. There is no problem with this. —Maury (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Diaries of Court Ladies of Old Japan

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for February 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This was a PotM, and I just realized it's also been validated. The court diaries of the period covered are considered both important historical documents, as well as literature in their own right. I've taught history classes with a unit on feudal Japan, and the textbook we used had a whole section dedicated to expounding upon these diaries. In addition to having historical importance and being good reading, this translation of the diaries comes with many fine illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

•  Support A true delight to read. I've read this as an ePub on my eReader as a further validation process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment I noted some discrepancies in font size of poetry entries in the text (primarily, if not exclusively, in the first chapter). I can go through and make sure all the poetry is set to 92% as per the example on the Project discussion page... Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
•  Support I looks like the poetry font size has been fixed so I support this for FT.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Problems of Philosophy

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for March 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating The Problems of Philosophy for featured text. It's fully validated, looks nice, and even has a Librivox recording. The only issue for me is that the {{listen}} template covers up a portion of the first paragraph. I don't know if that's my browser or a defect in the template itself. Looking at our featured text history, it looks like we haven't done a philosophical work in quite some time.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

•  Support - I agree. Quality of the text looks good. No trouble with the {{listen}} template in my FF browser DutchTreat (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

On the Determination of the Wave-length of Electric Radiation by Diffraction Grating

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for April 2015 - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this work. It is fully validated and considered important in microwave optics and for the invention of the radio. Citations of this article in scholarly papers can be seen here. Hrishikes (talk) 08:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support for next year, since we've already had a scientific paper featured this year.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
• Looks pretty good. But I think names of scientists should link to internal author pages not Wikipedia articles; and the article should be moved to (and contextualised at) Proceedings of the Royal Society of London/Volume 60/On the Determination of the Wave-length of Electric Radiation by Diffraction Grating. Hesperian 03:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  +1 to Hesp's comments, and I wouldn't link "diffraction grating" in a title of a work, partial linking of titles to articles should be avoided at all costs. Usually articles would be linked, so while this would be a self-reference, I think that it is a practice to be avoided. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  Agree, but also I note that some of the Wikipedia links in the article are not to the English Wikipedia. Sarasin is linked to his biography on the German Wikipedia, presumably because there is not an English article. Linking to a foreign-language Wikipedia in the middle of an article is not best practice. It would be better to start a stub article on the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rectifications done. Hrishikes (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  Alternative nomination:On a Complete Apparatus for the Study of the Properties of Electric Waves, which describes the apparatus and is more famous, as described on its talk page. There is scope of improvement beyond my expertise, e.g. rendering the image backgrounds transparent. Hrishikes (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kopal-Kundala

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for May 2015 --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Possibly the first fully validated translated Bengali novel here.
• Done as a PotM, so meets the criteria of multiple contributors.
• Position in original language: still holds the place of honour for its linguistic grace. Along with its immediate predecessor, Durgesa Nandini, effectively set the trend of the novel in Bengali literature. Cinematised many times in various Indian languages.
• Genre: Historical romance in the background of sixteenth century India, contains contemporary social and political intrigues, a main character portrayed as a courtesan in the imperial court and also a childhood friend of the future empress of India.
• How different: scholars have found it to be a mix between Shakespeare's The Tempest and Kalidasa's Abhijnan Shakuntalam. But the character of the heroine is significantly different from either Miranda or Shakuntala. The author makes a psychological experiment with the character of Kopal-Kundala. She was brought up in a dense jungle by a Tantric ascetic, and on marriage and coming to a city, she is unable either to adjust to the city life or to love her husband. In the luxury of the city, she still craves her sylvan milieu.

Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This work is not eligible as it fails style guidelines. It seems that someone went through and annotated at least some of this book instead of keeping this copy clean and creating a second annotated copy. The Haz _talk 19:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are you seeing a requirement for an unannotated copy in the FT requirements? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked, one criterion was that it has to meet the WS style guide. That's what I was referring to. I helped proof this text and really like it. Someone went through and annotated the clean copy we had instead of making a new annotated copy. Plus, do we really want the annotated copy as a featured text? I would love to see the clean copy as FT though. The Haz _talk 12:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, but where did you check that you found this criterion? I do not see it, nor have I ever seen such a criterion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Criterion #1. It's on the Style guide, but I just noticed that it's always been proposed but never finalized. The Haz _talk 16:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support As far as I know, not a single Indian text has ever been an FT. Good to see the gap being filled. —Clockery_Fairfeld 07:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

n.b. I am selecting this work for May, since we have not yet had a novel this year. We usually have several, and I wish to see that they don't all come at once at the end of the year. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Studies of a Biographer

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for June 2015.

in 4 vols., fully validated, by Leslie Stephen, editor of and contributor to the DNB. Compilation of studies on notable authors, including a nice 'stroll' "In Praise of Walking." Thought it might make a nice addition to Featured Text, as well as a good way to highlight/advertise the DNB project. Stephen "was at his best in a sort of condensed biography, rather than in strictly literary criticism. Examples of this special gift may be found in his Studies of a Biographer..." (Outlines of Victorian Literature, 1913) As nominator, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Clearly I am in favour of works that I transcribed , it also enables us to highlight one of the series and point at the other three volumes. I like LJB's idea of emphasising works that we also have worked upon. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
•  Support, but I would like to see consistent formatting, among the four vols, for titles and references (different sizes right now). I can help, should 1 be as 2,3,4 or viceversa?--Mpaa (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that titles should be x-larger (which most of them are), and convert to smallrefs (which most of them are). Whatever the consensus, I can help out with either/or... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Done I went ahead and fixed title font size/spacing, and switched to smallrefs in the Mainspace pages. It's not necessary to switch to smallrefs in the Pages too, is it? If so, I'll have a go at it, but am hoping it is sufficient to merely make the changes to the Mainspace pages...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as the Pages are consistent, it should be OK, but Featured Texts should represent the very best we have to offer. So if there's something you think ought to be improved, then please do so. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Pages are now consistent. Smallrefs are not used in the Pages, but are converted to smallrefs in the Mainspace pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

•  Support For June, maybe? —C. F. 20:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support —Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
• Closing for June 2015 selection.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen Mab

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for August 2015.

This is an important work by Shelley (being his first important poem), and explains some of his philosophical notions regarding revolution and change. We haven't had a poem featured this year, and this is a successful PotM attemp a few months ago.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Calcutta: Past and Present

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for October 2015.

The work is highly notable since publication (cited here as reference) and written from a somewhat unusual perspective (see 2nd para of preface). Adorned with rare engravings and photographs. Also meets criteria of multiple contributors (see talk page of index). Hrishikes (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

On a first pass, the one thing that stands out to me as an issue prior to featuring this work is that many of the images need to be straightened to the vertical and/or more closely cropped. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: can you please do it? I am not good at tinkering with images. Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not have good image software at this time, and incremental rotations of images are something I cannot do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do it, if I can get the time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support Images now tidied. Looks good and fits criteria. Moondyne (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to put this up next month so that we don't go another month without a new FT. Could someone prepare an appropriate blurb for the main page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested blurb:

First published in 1905, this book lays before the reader a vivid picture in lucid style of the colonial Calcutta, then capital of British India, from its initial days at the time of Job Charnock till the time of Warren Hastings, the first governor-general of India. Adorned with rare engravings and photographs, this work was written by a British lady from a somewhat unusual perspective. In the author's own words, "My aim has not been to give any account of the great deeds by which the men of old Calcutta laid the foundations of the British Empire in the East, but rather to try and depict the lives they led, their daily cares and amusements, the wives and daughters who lightened their exile, the houses in which they dwelt, the servants who waited on them, the food they ate, the wines they drank, the scenes amid which they moved, the graves in which they laid their loved ones or sank themselves to rest."

Hrishikes (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Tom Brown's School Days

The following discussion is closed:

Selected for December 2015.

I am nominating Tom Brown's School Days (6th ed), specifically for December, as I think it would make good holiday reading.

Tom Brown's School Days is the story of Tom Brown's adventures at Rugby School. Dr. Arnold, the headmaster in the novel, was a real person, and he reformed and improved Rugby school. The book became immensely popular very soon after it was published, establishing many of the norms of the school fiction genre for the next century. It's literary influence continues to be felt today, as it has influenced the writing of authors such as Terry Pratchett and J. K. Rowling. Its popularity also lives on in the name of the sport rugby, which previously was known as football. The popularity of the book led to the adoption of Rugby School rules for the sport and so it acquired its now familiar name.

The edition we have includes a special introduction written by the author for the 6th edition. It also includes many illustrations by the artist Louis Rhead, who took time to visit Rugby School and to research the look and style of the period. There is a Wikipedia article on the book and its several film adaptations and a wikiquote page for the book. There is a link (from both of these pages) to a LibriVox audio recording of the novel. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not passed

The Wild Goose

The following discussion is closed:

Failed to meet basic criteria.

This is a very special text. It is a hand-written newspaper produced by Irish convicts between October 1867 and January 1868 onboard the British convict ship, Hougoumont, which sent to exile 62 Fenians and 108 others who had been selected from the prisons at Dartmoor, Pentonville, Chatham, Millbank, Portsmouth and Portland to the penal settlement at Fremantle, Western Australia. All had endured extreme prison suffering before transportation which was relaxed slightly during the voyage thanks to a kindly chaplain, Fr. Bernard Delaney of Dublin who provided materials for the enterprise. Miraculously, the original manuscript survives and is currently kept at the Mitchell Library in Sydney. It was only recently digitised. As far as I know this is the first complete transcription. This nomination may fail criterion 2 (multiple proofreaders), but I hope that some extra attention may resolve that. Transcribing 45000 words of handwriting is a hard slog. Moondyne (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support It is worth featuring, after validation. Hrishikes (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

 Oppose This work is not eligible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I don't know whether there's something I'm not seeing, but how exactly is this text ineligible? —Clockery_Fairfeld 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at the criteria? "The work must be completely proofread by multiple editors..." Since this work has not met that criterion, it is not eligible to be considered. The nominations page is the place to nominate works for consideration once they have met the criteria. It is not a place to seek help with validations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay. —Clockery_Fairfeld 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support when validating is done. I've tried doing a bit myself. @Moondyne: "Hard slog" is an understatement! ;) —Clockery_Fairfeld 08:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Closed as Failed. Nominations failing to meet basic criteria may be removed after 24 hours, but this has sat as a nomination for 5 months and has yet to be validated. It may be renominated once it has met the nomination criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Other

Proposal for featured author

The following discussion is closed:

Discussion only

In the manner of w:Wikipedia:Featured topics, I propose Featured Author and Featured Foreign-language Author here. Instead of monthly, this can be considered on 3- or 6-monthly basis. For consideration of the community, I also propose Author:Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Author:Jagadish Chandra Bose in the foreign author category. A substantial amount of their works has been added in recent times: some proofread, some validated, some under process. More knowledgeable members can put forward nominations under the overall featured author category, which will, of course, include foreign authors too. I don't know if such a proposal is in order or not; anyway, here goes. Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment about "3- or 6-monthly". The "Featured Topics" at Wikipedia is a static list that never appears on the Main Page. The list simply identifies those groups of related articles that have all passed the GA/FA evaluation process. Our equivalent process is sourcing/validation. So, what is it you are proposing? Also, since this is not about Featured texts, the discussion should probably appear in the Scriptorium so that everyone will see it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It was only a draft proposal. We don't have to do it exactly like Wikipedia. The nitty-gritties, like criteria, display, implication etc can be discussed if the idea generally sounds good. Seems that it is not. OK, no problem. Hrishikes (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Although, I have noticed that featured author item does exist here, as in Portal:Poetry. Hrishikes (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That is something done by a person who has chosen to tackle a particular Portal. Most portals don't have that. . . mostly because most of our portals have yet to achieve that kind of quality. That instance of a "Featured Author" also requires that a large body of works by that author are available on Wikisource, and that someone volunteers to maintain the portal and keep a rotation going. It's a Herculean task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)